Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Croydon Corporation Bill [Lords].

Derby Corporation Bill [Lords].

Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords].

Isle of Wight Water Bill [Lords].

Brighton Corporation Bill [Lords].

Wallasey Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

PROVISIONAL ORDER Bills (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:

Mexborough and Swinton Tramways Company (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.

Southend-on-Sea Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.

Rotherham Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.

Maidstone Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Darlington Corporation Trolley Vehicles (Additional Routes) Provisional Order Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

St. Helens Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill.

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEPARATION AND MAINTENANCE ORDERS.

Mr. SNELL: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the House the number of the separation and maintenance orders granted under the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1895, by the Police Courts of England and Wales since 1919; whether there are any figures available showing the number granted since the passing of the Separation and Maintenance Act, 1925; and how many of these have been put into force?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): During the years 1919–1925 (inclusive), 34,206 orders were granted and during 1926, 5,489 orders. The Act of 1925 came into force on the 1st October of that year, but separate figures for the last Quarter of that year are not available. It is not possible to state the number of orders made prior to actual separation, under that Act, which have taken effect.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these orders are for dependants who are living in the Colonies, and cannot be served?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Obviously, I cannot give that information without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — MENTAL HOSPITALS (MARRIED INMATES).

Mr. SNELL: 4.
asked the Home Secretary the number of married inmates of lunatic asylums who have been certified for more than five years; and will he give the figures of those who have been in asylums for 10 years and upwards?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I have been asked to reply. The only statistics available on this point are those which were collected in 1921 and were communicated to the hon. Member in reply to a question on the 3rd May, 1923. The provision of an up-to-date return would necessitate an examination of the registers of all the public mental hospitals, and I regret that I do not feel justified in calling for such a return at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

FATAL ACCIDENTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the Home Secretary how many fatal accidents happened on the roads during the week ending the 11th June; and in how many of these were motor vehicles concerned?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I regret I am not in a position to give this information.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Are there any means of getting it?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This kind of accident is not reported to the Home Office but to the local police, and, unless I make a special request, I cannot get the information.

PILLION RIDING (ACCIDENTS).

Mr. TINKER: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of fatalities in 1926 caused through pillion riding?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I regret that the information asked for by the hon. Member is not available.

Mr. TINKER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is any intention of bringing in legislation which will deal with pillion riding?

Colonel ASHLEY: Yes. If the hon. Member will peruse the draft of the Road Traffic Bill he will see that it is proposed to give certain powers to the Minister of Transport to deal with certain aspects of this question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that
there is the greatest objection to any interference with the liberty of the subject in regard to pillion riding?

Colonel ASHLEY: Does the hon. and gallant Member refer to the liberty of a number of young ladies to ride pillion?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the Minister of Transport aware that this is the only way many people of modest means have of getting out into the country?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. and gallant Member will read the Bill, he will see that it is only proposed to interfere in two aspects; one, to give power to the Minister to limit the number of pillion riders, and the other, the ways in which they are to be seated.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the fact that a great number of fatalities are due to this method of riding; and is it not the case that many rural district councils are urging the Minister of Transport to take powers to stop it?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot discuss a Bill which has not yet been brought in.

NOISE AND VIBRATION (NERVOUS STRAIN)

Mr. RILEY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that considerable strain and waste of nervous energy is caused by the increase of noise and vibration brought about by modern conditions of traffic both in town and country, especially in the ease of the sick, elderly and infirm; and whether, as the subject concerns several public Departments and does not fall within the scope of any single Minister, he will take steps to ensure that it shall be considered as a whole and will appoint a Committee to ascertain and record the best medical opinion as to the effect on the human system of noise and vibration, and consider what action is desirable in this connection, due regard being had to economic and other practical considerations?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This matter is in some aspects already receiving attention from the Industrial Fatigue Research Board, and will be kept under observation, but I doubt if the time is yet ripe for such an investigation as is suggested.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. W. THORNE: 7.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in a number of cases of pre-war police pensioners the receipt of the old age pension means a corresponding reduction of the police pension now being received; and whether he will take steps to secure the payment of the full pension?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As I explained in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth, increases of police pensions under the Pensions (Increase) Acts are by Statute subject to a means limit, and the Treasury Regulations governing the grant of such increases do not allow a police authority to disregard an old age pension when assessing a pensioner's means. I do not see my way to propose any alteration in this respect.

Mr. THORNE: In consequence of this Act having been passed long before the Old Age Pensions Act, cannot that be taken into consideration, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman see whether some alterations could be made to meet the case of these men who are being penalised at the rate of 10s. a week?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is exactly the same whether a person is pensionable or whether he has private means. In the same way under the original Old Age Pensions Act, pensions or other forms of private means are taken into consideration.

Mr. HAYES: In view of the great discrepancy between pre-war and post-war pensions, though earned by almost exactly the same work and service, would not the removal of the limitation provisions of the Pensions (Increase) Act meet the difficulty in this case.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: it would improve matters, and so it would improve matters with regard to other forms of pensions, if all restrictive limits were removed.

Mr. ROBINSON: 13.
asked the Minister of Health if he will furnish approximate figures of the number of women aged 65 and under 70, wives of insured men aged 70 or who will be 70 prior to 2nd January, 1928, who will be ineligible for the old age pension until they reach
the age of 70; and whether, when the women reach the age of 70, they will, be eligible for the old age pension, irrespective of income?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As regards the first part of the question, I have no information as to the number of women in the category referred to; as regards the second part, the women will, on attaining 70, be entitled, irrespective of income, to old age pensions provided their husbands were entitled to old age pensions by virtue of the Contributory Pensions Act, 1925.

Mr. ROBINSON: 15.
asked the Minister of Health, whether, all cases where an insured man reaches the age of 70 prior to 2nd January, 1928, the wife will be treated as ineligible for old age pension between the age of 65 and 70; and, if so, under what Section of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 2nd instant to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey).

DEATH OF NURSE DANIELS (COMMISSION ROGATOIRE).

Colonel DAY: 9.
asked the Home Secretary the date of the return of the Commission Rogatoire, together with the evidence required by the Juge d'Instruction, at Boulogne, who is investigating the murder of Nurse May Daniels?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Commission Rogatoire was returned on the 9th instant through the usual diplomatic channel.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the reason for the long delay in the return of this Commission?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member will read the information which I have sent to him, in reply to a letter, he will see that a great part of the delay was on the other side. If I remember rightly, a Commission, dated some time in March, did not get over for nearly six weeks, and then we had to obtain the evidence, and sand it back.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the evidence for the new Commission that has been sent will be facilitated, and can he give any idea when it will be returned?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: All I can say is, that we do use all possible expedition in these matters, but we have to take evidence by pursuing the ordinary legal procedure. There is no avoidable delay.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

STAFFING.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many and which authorities have agreed to discharge teachers, to make no new appointments, or otherwise to cut down their staffs, as a result of representations made to them by the Board?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): In 55 cases out of the 301 so far approved for 1927–28, the establishment approved was less than that originally proposed, but in a number of these cases the reduction was due to the discovery of miscalculations or other causes, and not to any pressure from the Board. I do not think that I should be justified in undertaking the considerable expenditure of time and labour which would be required to make an analysis of each individual case.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Does the Noble Lord not think that now we have an increased number of school children there is an opportunity not only for keeping the staff we have, but for making better provision in our schools, in regard to staffing?

Lord E. PERCY: The answer is that there is not an increase in the number of children and, in the second place, there is an increase in the number of teachers.

CIRCULARS (SALE).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that the Board's regulations as to school staffing, building, etc., have been omitted from the Code, and therefore are not readily accessible to the
public, he will arrange that in future all circulars and other detailed instructions to authorities shall be on sale to the public at the usual booksellers?

Lord E. PERCY: Copies of the Board's circulars and other publications can be procured by local authorities and governing bodies direct from the Board, and in cases where there is a sufficient public demand for such documents arrangements are already made for them to be put on sale at the Stationery Office depots, where they can be purchased by booksellers and the general public.

LEAVING AGE.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Association of Education Committees urging that legislation should be passed providing that, within a period not exceeding six years from the present year, it shall be legally obligatory for children to attend school up to the age of 15; and whether, in view of the statement in his letter of January last to the chairman of the consultative committee to the effect that his reason for not carrying out the recommendation of the consultative committee as to the raising of the school age was that, by so doing, he would disturb the plans of local education authorities, he is now prepared to introduce legislation providing that the age of compulsory school attendance shall be raised to 15 at the date recommended by the annual meeting of the Association of Education Committees?

Lord E. PERCY: I have seen a report of the resolution in the Press, but the Association has not communicated with me on the subject. The hon. Member appears to have forgotten that last January I invited local authorities again, as I had already done two years ago in Circular 1358, to formulate their views on the question of the school leaving age, and that in March I asked them to undertake comprehensive surveys of the ultimate requirements of their areas in respect of post-primary education. I hope this resolution indicates an intention on the part of authorities to undertake such surveys, which few of them have yet done. Meanwhile, authorities are aware that I am prepared to consider
proposals for raising the statutory age of school attendance to 15, and I have recently approved proposals submitted to me by the authorities for Cornwall and Plymouth.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RURAL WORKERS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 14.
asked the Minister of Health whether any proposals have yet been submitted by local authorities under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act; and in which counties are houses being re-conditioned or extended to provide additional accommodation for workers in rural districts?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Proposals have so far been submitted by 40 local authorities under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of these authorities. Other local authorities have schemes under consideration, but have not yet actually submitted proposals.
With regard to the last part of the question, statistics as to action taken under the Act are not yet available.

Mr. HURD: Is it not a fact that there is a large number of cottages in our villages which are very much out of repair and ought to be brought under this Act? Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage the local authorities to use their powers to compel the owners, if necessary, if they cannot induce them otherwise, to bring their cottages under this Act?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. I am aware of that, and I think one of the results of this Act will be that local authorities will be justified in applying more pressure to the owners of such houses than they have done hitherto.

Following is the list:

County Councils:

Cheshire.
Cornwall.
Cumberland.
Derby.
Devon.
Dorset.
Essex.
Gloucester.
Hereford.
Kent.
1160
Lancashire.
Lincoln (Holland).
Lincoln (Lindsey).
Middlesex.
Northampton.
Northumberland.
Somerset.
Stafford.
Suffolk, East.
Surrey.
Sussex, East.
Westmorland.
Wiltshire.
Worcester.
Yorks, East Riding.
Yorks, North Riding.
Yorks, West Riding.
Anglesey.
Brecknock.
Carnarvon.
Carmarthen.
Denbigh.
Montgomery.
Monmouth.
Pembroke.

County Boroughs:

Worcester.

Rural District Councils:

Aylsham Rural District Council.
Isle of Wight Rural District Council.
Smallburgh Rural District Council.
Wayland Rural District Council.

BUILDING PLANS.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 16.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can supplement the information published monthly in the "Labour Gazette," as to building plans approved in certain areas, by an annual statement as to the total value of plans passed by local authorities in the whole of England and Wales?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The collection of the information necessary for an annual statement such as desired would involve so much expense to the local authorities and to the Ministry, that I think it necessary, in view of the need for economy, to be content with the large and representative sample provided by the present collection of returns from 146 of the principal towns, covering over two-fifths of the total population of Great Britain, outside London. Figures for the County of London would not be obtainable as prior submission of plans to the
local authority is not required if the provisions of the London Building Act are complied with.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman get any information from rural areas? The information published refers to urban areas?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I think I have some.

RENT RESTRICTION ACTS.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 21.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that Part II of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act is to continue for five years after December next and that it provides for referring any matters of hardship to the Court, he will consider the termination of Part I next December; and whether, in any circumstances, he will consider making provision that persons who have bought houses for their own occupation, but who are now debarred from occupying them, may he allowed to take possession of their properties?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and gallant Friend's suggestions will be carefully considered in connection with the future of the Rent Restriction Acts.

STATISTICS.

Mr. VIANT: 25.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses erected in this country from the bginning of the year 1919 to the end of March, 1927, and their estimated value; and whether he has any figures showing the number and value of buildings erected for commercial purposes?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is estimated that some 866,000 houses were erected in England and Wales between the beginning of 1919 and the end of March, 1927, but no particulars are available as to their estimated value. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative; but I might draw the hon. Member's attention to the statements published quarterly in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," which are based on returns received from a number of local authorities in Great Britain, giving the estimated cost of various buildings for which plans were passed by those authorities during the period.

ST. NICHOLAS BURIAL GROUND, TOOTING GRAVENEY.

Colonel DAY: 17.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a reply to his communication of 27th May to the incumbent and churchwardens of the parish of Tooting Graveney; and whether, in view of the contents of that communication, an Order in Council will be issued to the effect that burials be discontinued forthwith in the churchyard of the parish church of St. Nicholas, Tooting Graveney, in the Metropolitan Borough of Wandsworth, as existed prior to 1857, except as specially provided for in his communication?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received no objection to the formal notice contained in the communication of the 27th May referred to in the question, and I have made representation to the Privy Council for an Order in Council accordingly.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any burials have taken place in this graveyard since the 27th May?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information to that effect.

Colonel DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no further burials take place, because, according to a, report which he has, he must realise the menace to health?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that prohibition can be exercised until the Order in Council for which I have applied has been obtained.

LONDON LOCK HOSPITAL.

Lieut. - Colonel FREMANTLE: 19.
asked the Minister of Health if he has received complaints with regard to the management of the London Lock Hospital; if he is in a position to reassure the public on the subject; and, if not, in view both of the grants made to it by public authorities and of the national importance of the work which it undertakes, will he direct an inquiry to be made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The hospital in question is a voluntary one, and my hon.
and gallant Friend will appreciate that the general management of voluntary hospitals does not come under my review. Any grants to this hospital in respect of specific services are made by local authorities, principally by the London County Council. I understand that the council have given notice of withdrawal of their grant in connection with a general review of their arrangements for the venereal disease service, and I have concurred in their proposed action. In these circumstances there seems no reason for any inquiry?

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: If the right hon. Gentleman were specially asked to do so by the board of management, would he be prepared to appoint a committee of inquiry?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes. If the board of management made a request to me for an inquiry into the general management of the hospital, I should be prepared to consider that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 23.
asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to state, for the latest available date, the number of persons ordinarily engaged in some regular occupation, and their dependants, who were in receipt of poor relief on ground of unemployment; how many of these were unemployed persons; and how many of the latter were registered at the Employment Exchanges?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the 1st January last the total number of men, women and children in receipt of domiciliary Poor Law relief in England and Wales on account of unemployment was approximately 632,000. Of these approximately 183,800 were men or women ordinarily engaged in a regular occupation but unemployed at that date. It is estimated that, or these 183,800 persons, approximately 149,000 were registered at the Employment Exchanges.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether that means that all but about 30,000 of those who receive Poor Law relief were in fact registered at the Employment Exchanges and included in the live register?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, it means that all but 30,000 of those ordinarily engaged in regular occupations were unemployed at that time.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider as to making such arrangements with regard to persons out of work who are required to sign on at an Employment Exchange as will ensure their being free at those hours of the day when they are able to look for work with the most chance of success?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): Attendance at a local office during ordinary working hours is usually required as evidence that the claimant is in fact unemployed, but other considerations are also kept in mind and suitable arrangements are made in all cases where it appears that attendance at a particular time affects the claimant's opportunities of finding employment. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars of any specific case to which he considers that my attention should be drawn I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Sir F. HALL: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in many cases the Employment Exchange requires men to sign an at 9.30 and 9.15 in the morning; that that is the hour when many men would be seeking work from would-be employers; and cannot some arrangement be made so as to meet these men about 2.0 o'clock in the afternoon?

Mr. BETTERTON: If the hon. and gallant Member will give me particulars of any such cases, I will look into them and see whether arrangements can be made to meet the situation.

NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

Sir JOHN POWER: 26.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the present total of accrued but unpaid interest in respect of national savings certificates?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): About £121 millions on the 31st March last.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

REPAYMENT CLAIMS.

Sir HUGH LUCAS-TOOTH: 28.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Treasury has refused to repay claims in respect of overpaid taxes where there has been a mistake as to the basis of assessment; and why they continue to do so after similar repayments in respect of the same or other years have been held correct by a Court of Law?

Mr. McNEILL: Speaking generally, the power of a taxpayer to require the reopening of an assessment to Income Tax, Schedule D, which has become final and conclusive, is governed by the provisions of Section 24 of the Finance Act, 1923, which deals with certain cases of error and mistake; a judicial decision has no retrospective effect in relation to assessments which have become final and conclusive under the law.

CHANNEL ISLANDS (RESIDENTS).

Mr. BROCKLEBANK (for Captain PETER MACDONALD): 27.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now state the reply of the Channel Islands to the request of the British Government for assistance in securing that people who take up residence in the Channel Islands shall not be able to avoid liability for English taxation?

Mr. R. McNEILL: My right hon. Friend is not at present in a position to snake any statement.

OFFICE OF WORKS (MR. J. THOMS).

Mr. KELLY: 30.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Mr. J. Thoms, who was employed by the Office of Works as a ganger in Hyde Park, has been refused the privilege of counting, for the purpose of gratuity payable on retirement from the Service, his regular Sunday duty pay, which had extended continuously for a period of 32 years; whether, in view of the fact that Section 4 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, provides for the payment of a compassionate gratuity not exceeding one pound or one week's pay, whichever is the greater, for each year of his service, he will make inquiries into the case, with a view to the provisions
of the Act being allowed in this case; and if instructions will be issued that in future all regular and continuous payments for work performed over a period of years are to be calculated in the one week's pay for gratuity and pension purposes, in accordance with the Superannuation Act?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (on behalf of the First Commissioner of Works) to the hon. Member for Edge. Hill (Mr. Hayes) on the 9th November last. I am not prepared to alter the rule referred to in that answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. ALFRED WILLIAMS: 33.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how long the country has been free from foot-and-mouth disease; and how long it is since there has been a similar period of immunity?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Great Britain has been free from foot-and-mouth disease since 6th April, 1927, i.e., for 10 weeks. Such a prolonged period of immunity from the disease has not been enjoyed by this country since 1921, when the country was free from 12th August to 24th November.

PEDIGREE CATTLE (QUARANTINE STATIONS).

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when the three quarantine stations for the export of pedigree cattle will be ready for use?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Empire Marketing Board has offered to finance the establistment of three quarantine stations; in London, Liverpool and Glasgow. The Royal Agricultural Society of England has agreed to establish and maintain the London and Liverpool Stations, and has instructed an architect to prepare plans for the former and is seeking a site for the latter. The Highland and Agricultural Society has undertaken to establish and maintain a quarantine station at Glasgow if the Empire Marketing Board will find the funds. I am unable to say when these quarantine stations will be ready for use.

LAND DRAINAGE.

Mr. RILEY: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the total amount of financial assistance contributed by the State towards land drainage in England and Wales under the Acts of 1918 and 1926, respectively, and the total amount contributed by the owners of land and by local authorities during the same period?

Mr. GUINNESS: As the reply is rather long, I propose with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The Land Drainage Act, 1918, empowered the Ministry in certain circumstances to carry out drainage works and to recover the whole of the cost from the owners. This power, which has now been transferred to councils of counties and county boroughs by the Land Drainage Act, 1926, was exercised by the Ministry to a very small extent, the total expenditure being approximately £10,000. The powers of the Act of 1926 are exercisable by the councils of counties and county boroughs, and the Act does not include any provision for State expenditure.

During the winters of 1921–1922 to 1925–1926 inclusive a large number of schemes of land drainage and water supply were, however, carried out by county councils and drainage authorities, towards which grants were made by the Ministry from the funds placed at its disposal for the alleviation of unemployment in rural areas. The total cost of these scheme is estimated at £1,400,000, and the grants made by the Ministry amounted to approximately £907,000. In addition to these grants towards unemployment relief, the Ministry has been enabled for a period of five years from the 1st April, 1926, to make grants to statutory drainage authorities towards the cost of carrying out comprehensive schemes of land drainage designed to confer a wide benefit upon agricultural land. These grants will be made from the sum of one million pounds which, as was announced some time ago, would be devoted to this object, subject to the moneys being voted by Parliament. Of the schemes so far formally approved, most of which have yet to be completed,
the total cost is estimated at £346,000 approximately, and the State contribution at £156,000 approximately.

TITHE ACT, 1925.

Major Sir GRANVILLE WHELER: 35.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that there have been cases of considerable delay between the receipt of tithe payments by Queen Anne's Bounty under the Tithe Act, 1925, and the payment to those clergy to whom payments should be made; and will he state bow long Queen Anne's Bounty holds tithe money received from tithe payers before making full payment to the tithe owners?

Mr. GUINNESS: My hon. Friend will understand that I am in no way responsible for Queen Anne's Bounty, upon whom was placed the duty of dealing with Ecclesiastical Tithe Rent-charge under the Tithe Act, 1925. I am, however, sending my hon. Friend a copy of the memorandum which I have obtained from the Bounty explaining their arrangements for the distribution of tithe rentcharge to incumbents.

Sir G. WHELER: Is it possible to get an answer to this question. This is a question of genuine hardship, as a considerable number of clergy do not receive their tithe payments in the way that they have been receiving them, and are suffering as a result.

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, if we can get the information; but the administration is out of my hands. Parliament has decided that the administration, on certain terms, should be undertaken by the Queen Anne's Bounty.

Sir G. WHELER: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that, under the system of collection of tithe by Queen Anne's Bounty under the Tithe Act., 1925, many country clergy, who are tithe owners, are called upon to pay double for the cost of collection as compared with former costs; and whether he will consider the introduction of amending legislation to allow existing incumbents, who may desire to do so, to collect again their tithe providing that they give full security for the amount payable to the redemption fund?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am informed by Queen Anne's Bounty that, taking the
country as a whole, the cost of collection of ecclesiastical tithe rentcharge has been considerably reduced since the Bounty took over the collection. If there have been any individual cases where the cost of collection has been increased, they constitute exceptions to the general rule The question of allowing incumbents to collect their tithe rentcharge was exhaustively discussed during the passage of the Tithe Act, 1925, through Parliament, and as a result Section 10 gave an existing incumbent who had collected his own tithe rentcharge a statutory right to continue to do so. 1,818 incumbents availed themselves of this right, and I am not prepared, therefore, to introduce any amending legislation

WASHINGTON HOURS CONVENTION.

Mr. W. THORNE: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government has made any agreement with the Governments of France, Germany, Belgium and Italy with regard to the interpretation of the Washington Hours Convention; if he is aware that statements were made at Geneva last week to the effect that the five Powers should communicate to each other a list of industries in which it was necessary to work a 56-hour week, and that ratification should depend on an agreement about the list; and if he is aware that Article 4 of the Convention provides that up to 56 hours may be worked in those processes which are required by reason of the nature of the process to be carried on continuously by a succession of shifts?

Mr. BETTERTON: The conclusions of the conference held in London in March, 1926, with representatives of the Governments named in the question, have been published in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette." It was also arranged that the Governments should be asked to communicate to each other lists of the processes which they considered would fall under Article 4 of the Washington Convention, which is summarised correctly in the last part of the question. The preparation of the lists, which necessarily would take some time, could not be completed at the conference and the arrangement as to their future circulation was
not embodied in the published conclusions.

COAL MINING INDUSTRY (PRO- DUCTION AND CONSUMPTION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 43.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he is examining into the figures of the probable demand for British coal abroad during the remainder of this year and next year with a view to warning colliery proprietors against over-production; whether he is supplied with the figures of production and consumption of coal abroad and the expected world demand for coal; and whether any policy. to prevent over-production either through international action or by international agreement is being examined into?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I have been asked to reply. I am supplied with figures of production of coal abroad, and of import and export, but future demand depends on factors which are incalculable. I am, of course, in constant touch with colliery proprietors, and any facts and figures that are in my possession are always available to them. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer that I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. Wellock).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in the United States the collection of statistics of consumption and production has been reduced to a very careful process, and is of great value to manufacturers: and will he examine this with a view to assisting our own coal trade in the same way?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir, but I doubt whether their figures are any more complete than ours.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that there is no such thing as over-production of coal?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware of the fact that the trouble from which we are suffering in this country is the over-production of all the necessaries of life, never mind coal?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he has figures showing the annual production of coal in Europe and America and the annual world production, respectively, in 1913, and the corresponding figures for 1926, and the estimated figures for the present year; and if he is examining into the question of over-production of coal as affecting the British export trade?

Colonel LANE FOX: In 1913, Europe produced 632 million tons, and North America 531 million tons, and the total world production is estimated to have been 1,242 million tons. The corresponding figures for 1926, are respectively 497 million tons, 614 million tons and 1,220 million tons. The material is not available for making an estimate for 1927. All these figures include the coal equivalent of lignite. Those for 1926 are preliminary, and subject to revision. I have dealt with the rest of the hon. and gallant Member's question in the reply that I have just given to his other question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that the Mines Department is addressing itself to the very important matter dealt with in the last part of my question. Is that subject under close examination by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What happens to the results of the labours of the Department? Are they given to the colliery proprietors or do they remain in the pigeon-holes?

Colonel LANE FOX: They are given to whoever requires them—either colliery proprietors or hon. Members of this House who wish to have the information.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does the Department wait for the colliery proprietors to ask for the information, or is it given to them when it is of value to them?

Colonel LANE FOX: If there be any information which we think is of value, we pass it on. If there be anything which they want to know from us, they come to us for it.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH TROOPS.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for War the total number of British and Indian troops now stationed at Tientsin?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Commodore Douglas King): There are now at Tientsin two British battalions, less one company at the legation guard at Peking. There is no Indian battalion a Tientsin.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Was the view of the Indian Government taken into consideration when these troops were removed from India to China?

Mr. SPEAKER: The answer is that no Indian troops are there.

MILITARY CONTINGENTS.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether preparations are being made for the despatch of an international farce to Peking and Tientsin; what other countries are cooperating; and what will be the British quota?

Commodore KING: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but the Powers concerned have reinforced their respective contingents.

NANKING SETTLEMENT.

Mr. WELLOCK: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that brothels filled with 15-year old Chinese slave girls have been established by the British military in the settlement at Nanking for British and American troops and that the Kuomintang women's department have protested against this action; and what action does he propose to take in the matter?

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: On a point of Order. This Question raises a serious allegation against the British military authorities, and may I ask if the hon. Member who has put it down has any grounds for such an allegation?

Mr. SPEAKER: I assume that the hon. Member would not put the Question on the Paper unless he were personally satisfied on the facts.

Commander WILLIAMS: I notice that the Question also brings in the American troops. Is it correct to put a Question of that sort about a friendly Power?

Mr. SPEAKER: The wording of the Question is "established by the British military."

Commodore KING: There are no British or American troops at Nanking.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to that very definite contradiction of the allegation made in this Question, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what remedy or power we have to find out whether the hon. Member who put down the Question has any foundation at all for such a monstrous aspersion as is contained in the Question?

Mr. W. THORNE: Have you read the history of China?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the protest that has been made will lead to more care being taken. Where there is a question of doubt, I usually ask the Member concerned if he takes responsibility for the statements which he makes in a Question involving any allegations, and I supposed that the hon. Member had some information or knowledge, or that he was prepared to take some responsbility for the statement; otherwise, he would not put it on the Paper.

Mr. CLYNES: Although it is a very distasteful Question, may I ask, Sir, if, in the event of your ruling that such a Question ought not to be put, you will similarly rule that Questions containing monstrous implications against those on this side of the House should not be permitted either, in the future?

Sir F. HALL: That is very lame.

Mr. SPEAKER: I allowed this Question to go on the Paper assuming that the hon. Member had information, but it frequently happens in different parts of the House that Members may be genuinely misinformed and may, therefore, put down Questions on incorrect information. I am riot proposing to rule Questions out of Order on that ground. I have not the means of doing so.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Home Secretary cannot monopolise the House.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having regard to the nature of the reply, which makes it clear that there is absolutely no foundation for the Question, may I ask whether it is in your power, Sir, to inquire from the hon. Member who put down the Question, what were his grounds for making such an allegation?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, that is not in my power. I have to rely upon hon. Members doing their best to avoid any allegation for which they are not prepared to take personal responsibility.

Mr. WELLOCK: I put down this Question on definite information given to me. Obviously, there is some mistake in regard to the matter, and I think it is my duty to make definite inquiries further and to make any amends for any mistake that has occurred.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On the point raised by the Home Secretary. Everyone sympathises with the Home Secretary's point of view, but I want to make this submission on the question of fact—that in the British Colony of Hong Kong which is part of China there have been for many years licensed brothels, about which questions have been raised in this House, and the same applies to Singapore. That is known to any Eastern traveller. I put it to you, Sir, therefore, that the Home Secretary is not in order in imputing any lack of care to hon. Members on this side of the House because of this unfortunate Question.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the statement made by the hon. Member who put the Question is quite in accordance with the traditions of the House.

BRITISH LEGATION, PEKING.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 65.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the question of withdrawing the British Legation at Peking to the comparative security of the coast is being considered by His Majesty's Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): His Majesty's Government are giving full and constant consideration to this question. There is no present intention of withdrawal.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

INDIA HOUSE, LONDON.

Colonel DAY: 51.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the cost of building and fitting complete the new India House in London will be borne by the Indian Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Yes, Sir.

Colonel DAY: Will the Indian Government also bear the whole of any supplementary expenditure without any assistance from the home Government?

Mr. THURTLE: 59.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed that the whole of the £300,000 estimated as the cost of building and fitting the new India House in London will be borne on Indian revenues; and whether, in view of the fact that the commission for the building has been placed in the hands of a British architect, it is intended that an opportunity shall be given to Indian artists to take part in the interior decoration?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My Noble Friend is informed that the scheme for the internal decoration of the building has not yet been settled.

RAILWAYS (GAUGE).

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 52.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any officially appointed authority is giving systematic consideration to the railway gauge problem in India?

Earl WINTERTON: The question of gauge for each new project is considered in relation to the facts in each case, and it has not been thought desirable to constitute a special authority to consider the railway gauge question in India as a whole. The view of the Government of India is that the appointment of such an authority would interfere with and possibly delay the work of improving and developing the railways which is now in progress.

SLAVERY.

Sir R. THOMAS: 53.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India to what extent slavery still exists in remote
parts of India; and what progress is being made in the campaign for its gradual abolition?

Earl WINTERTON: A memorandum has been prepared for communication to the League of Nations containing the most recent information on this important subject, and with the hon. Baronet's permission, copy will be circulated in the OFFICIAL- REPORT in answer to his question.

Following is the memorandum:

MEMORANDUM ON SLAVERY IN REMOTE PARTS OF INDIA.

"In a Memorandum dated the 26th August, 1925, which was communicated to the League of Nations, on Slavery in the Hukawng Valley in the neighbourhood of the Burma frontier, an account was given of the plans for emancipating slaves formulated after a visit of the Governor of Burma to the Valley in the preceding January. Sir William Vincent in a speech in the Assembly on the 25th September last made a brief reference to the carrying out of these plans, but it may be of interest further to record that as the result of an expedition to the Valley in December, 1925, to April, 1926, Mr. J. T. 0. Barnard, C.I.E., the Civil Officer in charge, was able to report that 3,445 slaves were released at a cost of Rs.1,96,163, paid either as compensation to their owners or by way of a solatium to the headmen of the tracts in which ownerless slaves resided. Each and every slave was actually seen at the time of release and not a single slave remained in the Valley after the Expedition. Much useful medical work was done during the tour amongst the inhabitants, who came in large numbers for treatment. Mr. Barnard himself returned by way of Assam, the Government of which Province are co-operating with the Burma Government.

"The slaves in the Hukawng Valley having been released, the Government of Burma reported that the only other important area in which slavery existed to any marked extent was that known as 'the Triangle,' lying roughly in the bend between the Mali Kha and Nmai Kha rivers north of their junction to form the Irrawaddy river (between latitudes 25° 35' and 27° 9' and longitudes 97° 30' and 38° 15'). It was estimated that the district contained about 5,000 slaves and it was considered that their emancipation ought to follow closely on the action taken in the Hukawng Valley, adjoining it on the west. It was recognised that this would be a considerable undertaking, but it was decided to send to the district an expedition for the purpose on a scale sufficient to achieve its object and to provide for the safety of those composing it, at an estimated cost of Rs.9,15,720. The expedition which was timed to last six months was to be in charge of Mr. Barnard, assisted by three other civil officers, and an experienced officer of the Survey Depart-
ment, a Burman; and an escort was to be provided, consisting of 300 men of the Military Police, under five British officers, with the necessary followers.

"On the 10th January, 1927, the Governor held a Durbar Myitkyina and announced to the 120 Kachin chiefs or their representatives then present the unalterable decision of the British Government to abolish slavery, after payment of compensation on the same soak as in the Hukawng Valley (i.e., on an average, Rs.60 a slave). The expedition started on its work, and on the 29th January the first slave in the 'Triangle' was released. According to the information last received the Expedition has resulted in the release of over 4,000 slaves. It is estimated that some 400 or 500 remain to be released next cold weather, by reason of there having been a temporary interruption of the operations of one of the parties into which the expedition was divided by a treacherous attack made upon it towards the end of March by some 60 or 70 Kachins from a disaffected village. By this, Captain West, a very gallant officer, an Indian noncommissioned officer and one follower, met their deaths, exemplifying in a striking manner by the sacrifice of their lives the risk faced by the Indian Government in its efforts to introduce into backward regions the beneficient usages of a more settled civilisation.

"Simultaneously with the expedition to the 'Triangle,' another, but much smaller expedition has been working in the country to the west of the Hukawng Valley, and also visiting in the Valley itself the slaves released during the previous season. It is in charge of a civil officer, Mr. T. P. Dewar, with an escort of 75 Military Police, under a British Officer, and medical subordinates. It is reported to have found the released slaves settled comfortably in newly-established villages and content, some of them having taken to rice cultivation with success. An important object of this Naga Hills expedition, in addition to visiting released slaves and the settlement of blood feuds, is to get in touch with the Naga Chiefs, whose country is unmapped and unknown, and obtain from them promises to refrain from the revolting practice, known to prevail under the sanction of their religion, of human sacrifice or supplying victims therefor. The expedition which was timed to last five months and estimating to cost Rs.1,29,391 has been co-operating with the Assistant Superintendent, Mr. Mitchell, from the neighbouring district of Homalin, and according to the most recent reports assurances of the kind desired were being given by the Chiefs.

"To sum up, it may be stated that, as reported by the Governor, slavery has now practically ceased in Burma, on the eastern side of India, just as, on the western side, the Government of India were able to report to the League of Nations last March its final abolition in the Kalat State (Baluchistan), through a decree signed by His Highness on the 4th November, 1926, de-
claring that from that date private property in slaves had there ceased to exist."14th June, 1927.

PURNANANDA DAS GUPTA AND NAILINI RANJAN ROY.

Mr. SCURR: 57.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give any information as to the state of health of the two State prisoners, Purnananda Das Gupta and Nailini Ranjan Roy, both confined in Fategarh Central Gaol, United Provinces; and whether he is aware that repeated appeals have been made to the gaol superintendent for provision of physical exercises and fresh air for these prisoners in the open spaces of the gaol compound, and that these appeals have been refused because of the lack of consent on the part of the Government of Bengal?

Earl WINTERTON: I have seen a message from a correspondent at Furrukabad to the Calcutta "Forward" of 3rd April last, which contained the allegations detailed in the second part of the question. I have no other information on the matter, nor as to the state of health of the two persons in question, but am making inquiries.

CUSTOMS DUTIES.

Mr. SCURR: 58.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to establish a Customs line at Virangam, in view of the fact that the Government of India loses over a crore of rupees every year in Customs duties because some of the Indian States, especially Nawanager, allow goods to be landed in their ports; and whether any arrangements for rebates exist with regard to such imported goods?

Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India propose to discuss with the States concerned the new situation arising from the loss of revenue to which the hon. Member refers, and in the circumstances any statement in this House is clearly undesirable.

COTTON MILLS (JAPANESE COMPETITION).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 61.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the difficulties that are experienced by the cotton mills in India owing to Japanese competition; and whether, in view of the proposal to erect Japanese mills in India, any action has been taken, or is proposed to be taken,
on the Report of the External Capital Committee?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The recommendations of the External Capital Committee are under consideration by the Government of India in consultation with the Provincial Governments, and the point raised in the second part of the question will, no doubt, not be lost sight of.

MATCH INDUSTRY.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 62.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the management of the Indian branch of the Swedish Match Trust have refused to give evidence before the Tariff Board in connection with their investigations into the match industry in India; whether the Government of India propose to take steps to secure the attendance of the management concerned before the Board; and whether the Government also propose to take action on the Report of the External Capital Committee?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has no information in regard to the first two parts of the question. I have dealt with the third part in replying to the hon. Member's first question.

INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS (FINES).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 68.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the replies from local governments to the letter sent out by the Government of India, on the 25th June, 1926, on the subject of proposed legislation to regulate the imposition of fines in industrial establishments, are now complete; and, if not, whether he will state which of the local governments have not yet communicated their views in answer to the Government's letter?

Mr. THURTLE: 60.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state what response the Government of India received to the Circular sent out by them last year suggesting that there should be legislation to regulate the imposition of fines in industrial establishments; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation on this matter?

Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India contemplated full consideration
of the question of deductions from wages and fines when all the replies had been received from local governments whom they had consulted on the subject. On 9th April the replies of the Government of Bombay and the United Provinces were awaited. I am not aware whether they have been received since. Until the matter has been considered by the Government of India, for which time will he required, it is not possible to make a statement. My Noble Friend has no doubt that they will expedite its consideration as much as possible and has asked to be informed by telegraph as soon as they have reached their conclusions.

RUSSIA (LOUISE KOCH).

Sir F. HALL: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the incident recently disclosed by Sir Robert Hodgson in which Louise Koch, a maid servant of the British Mission at Moscow, was threatened at the Soviet Commissariat for Foreign Affairs with life imprisonment unless she acted as informer on the British Chargé d Affaires, was reported to the Foreign Office so soon as the facts were known; and whether any representations on the subject were made to the Soviet authorities at the time?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, His Majesty's Charge d' Affaires made at the time, and on several later occasions, such representations to the Soviet authorities as were possible without jeopardising the safety of Louise Koch so long as she remained in Soviet territory.

CHILDREN'S HOMES (INSPECTION).

Mr. CECIL WILSON (for Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE): 5.
asked the Home Secretary what steps he is proposing to take to implement the proposals of the Child Adoption Committee relating to the inspection of homes and institutions for poor children or young persons which are wholly or partly supported by voluntary contributions?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I propose to take these recommendations into consideration in connection with other recommendations made by the Young
Offenders' Committee which in both cases involve amendments of the Children Act, 1908.

POOR LAW RELIEF (CHILDREN'S WAR PENSIONS).

Mr. GROVES: 20.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the children of the late Private T. G. Cook, No. 293,391, Royal Air Force, are receiving pensions totalling 23s. weekly and that they live with their grandmother at 110, Chapel Street, Stratford, who for some time has received assistance from the West Ham Board of Guardians; whether he is aware that the guardians have now ceased to grant relief to the relative on the ground that the children's pension is household income; and whether he will take steps to see that pensions granted for the sole benefit of War orphans are not treated as a contribution toward the maintenance of any other person?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understand that in this case the means of the household are such that relief would not be granted if the children resided elsewhere and their pension was paid to some other foster parent. In these circumstances, the last part of the question does not arise, but I may say that I have no power to take such steps as are suggested.

Mr. GROVES: Is the Minister aware that the grandmother lives alone, and is an old-age pensioner, and that there is no other income except the War pension of these two children? Will he accept proof on the matter from me after Questions?

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. May I ask whether this question about this grandmother could not have been dealt with by correspondence with the Ministry, instead of wasting the time of the House of Commons?

Mr. SPEAKER: It remains with Members as to whether they put questions on the Paper or not.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is there no way, Mr. Speaker, in which you can suppress hon. Members opposite who, when we put a question that it is awkward for the Government to answer, get up and interrogate you, trying to browbeat you?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think hon. Members would do well to look after their own peccadilloes and not those of other hon. Members.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will now answer the supplementary question. My information is that the grandmother does not live alone, but that there are seven other persons living with her in the house, and if the hon. Member has other information and will submit it to me I shall be glad to consider it.

Mr. GROVES: May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that it is illegal for War orphans' allowances to be used for any other purpose than the maintenance of those War orphans?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already stated in my answer that that question does not arise, because the circumstances in this case are such that relief would not be given even if those children were living somewhere else and their pension were paid to another foster parent.

Mr. GROVES: The Minister is misinformed.

BRITISH RESORTS (FOREIGN DUTIES ON ADVERTISEMENTS).

Sir COOPER RAWSON: 29.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, whilst publicity advertising matter from foreign resorts enjoys the privilege of entry into the United Kingdom duty free, certain Continental countries impose heavy Customs duties on imported literature relating to British resorts, e.g., £6 on 5,000 copies of the Official Guide to Brighton, addressed to the Hamburg-America Line in Germany; and will he take steps to bring the matter to the notice of the Governments of the foreign countries concerned with a view to such duties being abolished or, alternatively, will he take the necessary steps to provide for a reciprocal duty being imposed on similar literature sent into the United Kingdom from abroad?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have been asked to reply. The attention of His Majesty's Government has already been called to this matter by my right hon. Friend the senior Member for Brighton (Major Tryon), from whom I
understand that the payment of the duty on the copies of the Brighton Guide was ultimately waived by the German authorities. I doubt the usefulness of any general attempt to induce foreign Governments to abolish any duties which, in accordance with their tariff policy, they impose on these particular classes of goods. As regards my hon. Friend's proposal for the imposition of a reciprocal duty in this country, I should point out that, having regard to the provisions of our Treaties, any such duty would have to be applied generally to countries which do not, as well as to countries which do, impose a duty on our guides.

Sir C. RAWSON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the duty was only waived by the German Government several months afterwards, when the season was over and these pamphlets were out of date and useless?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was not aware of that, but I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Pensions took action as soon as he knew about it. Undoubtedly there may have been some inevitable delay owing to the fact that the catalogues, or guides, or whatever they were, were obstructed at the time; but I imagine that owing to the prompt action of the senior Member for Brighton (Major Tryon) guides to this very excellent watering place will in future be admitted in good time.

Sir C. RAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the action of the German Government was completed before even the prompt intervention of my colleague the senior Member for Brighton, and therefore his answer is not particularly relevant?

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that £50,000,000 is spent annually by British people on holidays abroad, and in view of his general policy has he taken any steps to ensure that they shall take British holidays?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise now.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TELEPHONE SERVICE (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Captain FRASER: 47.
asked the Postmaster-General if his Department is de-
barred from advertising the advantages of the telephone by tradition or by Regulation; and, in the latter case, what authority is responsible for the Regulation?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): There are no Regulations debarring expenditure on advertisement of the telephone service, and, as my hon. and gallant Friend has been informed in answer to previous questions, a considerable amount of advertisement is carried out by means of posters, booklets, etc. I am not quite sure what my hon. and gallant Friend means by "tradition," but I can assure him that the method of seeking new business, mainly by means of personal canvassing in preference to Press advertisement, is pursued, because it is regarded as the most suitable and remunerative method.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: What is the use of advertising telephones when such enormous charges are made for the use of them and such stringent guarantees are required?

Viscount WOLMER: The question of the cost of telephones is a different, though I admit an allied question, into the details of which I shall be happy to go with my hon. and learned Friend.

Captain FRASER: Would not the cost of telephones be decreased if the latent demand were properly exploited by every conceivable avenue of advertisement?

Viscount WOLMER: It is quite true that the more you multiply telephones the more you reduce the cost of construction in certain directions, but it is equally true that you increase the cost of maintenance. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that a great increase in the number of telephones would not by itself produce a decrease in cost.

Sir F. HALL: Are we to understand that the more telephones we get the more it is going to cost, the Post Office?

Viscount WOLMER: I did not say that. If my hon. and gallant Friend looks at my answer to-morrow he will see that you have to set off against the cheaper cost of construction by reason of mass production the increased cost of maintenance owing to the greater complexity of the system. That has not been our
experience only, but it has been the experience in America and in other countries.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the Noble Lord aware that when I had my telephone changed the other day no less than 16 men attended during one week?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is giving information.

EGYPT (ARMY REORGANISATION).

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON (by Private Notice): asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement on the position in Egypt?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As the precise scope and meaning of certain passages in the original Egyptian Note on the subject of the Egyptian Army were open to some doubt, Lord Lloyd communicated to Sarwat Pasha the interpretation placed by him on the passages in question, and requested its confirmation by the Egyptian Government. Sarwat Pasha has now addressed to Lord Lloyd a further Note which, in the latter's opinion, satisfactorily explains the intentions of the Egyptian Government, and disposes of the cause of the recent tension.

Mr. CLYNES: Can the Under-Secretary say how soon the Papers will be laid on this question?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I suppose the right hon. Gentleman means the publication of the Notes. I do not think we can publish the Notes without first of all consulting the Egyptian Government. So far as the British Government are concerned they do not in the least object to publication of the Notes.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I had a question on the Paper on Monday on this subject, and I am glad the question has been raised now. Perhaps I may be permitted to ask the hon. Gentleman in what way the question of the position of the Sirdar has been settled by this happy outcome? How is it finally left?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is just the point. I do not think it would be courteous to the Egyptian Government
to give any details of these Notes until we get their consent.

Mr. CLYNES: Am I right in assuming that as soon as that assent has been secured Papers will be laid, and can the House be informed as to what is about to take place with regard to the battle ships?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Directly we get the assent of the Egyptian Government, no doubt Papers will be laid. With regard to the battleships, we have not had any report from Lord Lloyd as yet, but there is no doubt at all that the battleships will now be withdrawn, and, according to Press reports, one has already left.

FRENCH CHERRIES (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Sir G. WHELER (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that cherries infected by the maggot of the cherry fruit fly are coming in to the London markets, and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, Sir, the examination of samples taken on the markets by the Ministry's Inspectors recently has revealed the presence of somewhat heavy infestations. I have, therefore, decided that the importation of raw cherries grown in France must be stopped for the remainder of the season. An Order is being issued to-day, which will come into operation on the 24th June giving effect to this decision.

Sir G. WHELER: May I ask if it is not a fact that these cherries have been coming in to the certain knowledge of same of the Inspectors for some days, and therefore will he expedite the Order?

Mr. GUINNESS: I am afraid if we apply the Order immediately it would impose a very great lose on a, large number of British traders who have contracts outstanding in France. Action has been taken for some days past through the representatives of the French exporters, and they are holding up a great many consignments, as we understand, at the ports of shipment.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was not the same action taken last year with regard to French cherries, and is it
not a fact that it caused great inconvenience in Hull? I would like to ask why longer notice has not been given this year to the British importers who will have to bear the loss?

Mr. GUINNESS: We could not give notice of our intention to prohibit the importation of cherries before we reached a decision. We hoped that the machinery which had been set up by the French Government to examine the cherries, and not to sanction the exportation of any infested samples, would prove effective.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that these cherries are only paid for by the British merchant after they actually get delivery; and, in view of that fact, cannot the right hon. Gentleman take steps to make the closing order before the 24th June, so as to do away with the difficulty of these maggots to which he has referred?

Mr. GREENALL: May I ask if the action of the British Government in connection with cherries had anything to do with the action of the French Government in regard to the importation of coal?

Mr. GUINNESS: Our action is entirely on the ground of the reputation of British cherries which will shortly be coming on the market, and which we do not wish to suffer from any confusion with these imported cherries. We are also taking this action with a view to preventing any possibility of infecting our British cherry orchards.

Sir F. HALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a reply to my question as to whether it is not a fact that it is not necessary to pay for these cherries until after they have arrived?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend represents the attitude of the trade, because last year, when I issued an Order without a few days' notice, they came to me with great complaints of heavy losses, and I believe that such prompt orders as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests, so far from helping, would cause very grave inconvenience.

Colonel DAY: Had the Minister of Agriculture any facilities for obtaining
the reports of the French authorities on these cherries before the infection was brought to his notice over here?

Mr. GUINNESS: The French authorities told us they were only sending us clean cherries, and we, by our independent examination, found that in the last few days cherries with heavy infestation had been landed.

Mr. HURD: May I ask whether the position is that for the next eight days the British public are to be exposed to the introduction into this country of maggotty cherries from France, and what steps have been taken to prevent that?

Mr. GUINNESS: As I have already explained, steps are being taken by the French Government, and they assure us that numbers of these consignments are being rejected at Boulogne under the machinery set up by the French Government. I admit that that machinery does not appear to have been very effective, but I do not think it would be reasonable, in view of the action that has been taken, to impose a heavy loss on British traders.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Surely those people who have bought cherries and have been supplied with cherries containing maggots are not bound to pay for them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will be good enough to state the business for next week, and may I also put to him a further question with regard to the Motion on the Order Paper giving precedence to Government business? In the event of that Motion being carried, may I inquire what business, if any, it is intended to take other than that which has been already announced?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The business next week will be:
On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, the Report stage of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill.
On Thursday, the Third Reading of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill.
On each day, if time permit, other Orders will be taken.
On Friday, the Report stages and. Third Readings of private Members' Bills.
The Motion standing on the Order Paper in my name is to enable us to secure the Committee stage of the Crown Lands (No. 2) Bill, which is the second Order on the Paper.

Mr. MAXTON: With reference to the business that is to be taken after Eleven o'Clock, does the Prime Minister propose to keep the House until the early hours of the morning on the Crown Lands Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: That rests with the House rather than with the Prime Minister.

Mr. MAXTON: There are several Amendments on the Paper to this Bill, and the matter is of some importance and interest. Should it be necessary to give adequate discussion to this Bill, does the right hon. Gentleman propose that we should continue until it is completed?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member can always express himself with great precision, and I think he will be able so to put his points that we shall not have to sit late.

Mr. MAXTON: I am not thinking of myself; I am thinking of the general convenience

of the House. I know that there may not be general interest in the Bill, but certainly there is a considerable section that is seriously interested in it, and I think it would be for the convenience of the House that hon. Members should know whether they will be called upon to vote at Three or Four o'Clock in the morning on this important matter.

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that I cannot answer that question. I do not think that the request that the House should take the Committee stage of this Bill is an unreasonable one.

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that next week we are not to have a Supply day, on which we can discuss the mining situation?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I have already given out the business for next week.

Motion made, and Question put,
That other Government Business have precedence this clay of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business he exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister."]

The House divided: Ayes, 179 Noes, 83.

Division No. 182.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Clarry, Reginald George
Grotrian, H. Brent


Albery, Irving James
Clayton, G. C.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cooper, A. Duff
Hammersley, S. S.


Atkinson, C.
Cope, Major William
Hanbury, C.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Couper, J. B.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Harland, A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Harrison, G. J. C.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hartington, Marquess of


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hawke, John Anthony


Betterton, Henry B.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Henn, sir Sydney H.


Blundell, F. N.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Ellis, R. G.
Hills, Major John Walter


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s M.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Brass, Captain W.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Briscoe, Richard George
Fermoy, Lord
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fleiden, E. B.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Brown, Brig.- Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Finburgh, S.
Howard-Bury, Lieut-Colonel C. K.


Burman, J. B.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Huntingfield, Lord


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Hurd, Percy A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Ganzoni, Sir John
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gates, Percy
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)


Chapman, Sir S.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Goff, Sir Park
Lamb, J. Q.


Christie, J. A.
Grant, Sir J. A.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir. H. (W'th's'w,E)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Penny, Frederick George
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Loder, J. de V.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Tinne, J. A.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Perring, Sir William George
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lynn, Sir R. J,
Power, Sir John Cecil
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Raine, Sir Walter
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Macintyre, Ian
Ramsden, E.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


McLean, Major A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Rice, Sir Frederick
Watts, Dr. T.


Macquisten, F. A.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wells, S. R.


Malone, Major P. B.
Rye, F. G.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Savery, S. S.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Nelson, Sir Frank
Shepperson, E. W.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wolmer, Viscount


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Womersley, W. J.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wood, E (Chest'r Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Oakley, T.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)



O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Oman Sir Charles William C.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Tasker, R. Inigo.
F. C Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Riley, Ben


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D
Ritson, J.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Harney, E. A.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Baker, Walter
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Scrymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buchanan, G.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Stamford, T. W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Strauss, E. A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Taylor, R. A.


Dalton, Hugh
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, D.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, W. (West Ham Plaistow)


Dennison, R.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, C.
Lee, F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dunnico, H.
Livingstone, A. M.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Westwood, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenail, T.
Murnin, H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Palin, John Henry



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Whiteley.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL,

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel, That they had appointed Sir Cyril Cobb to act as Chairman of Standing Committee D (in respect of the Audit (Local Authorities) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Amendments to—

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Mr. DAVID REID reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Members to serve on Standing Committee D: Mr. Albery, Major Astor, Major Attlee, Commander Bellairs, Major Birchall, Mr. Blundell, Sir Harry Brittain, Mr. Broad, Mr. Bromley, Brigadier-General Brooke, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Buchan, Major Sir Herbert Cayzer, Brigadier-General Sir George Cockerill, Major Courtauld, Sir Henry Cowan, Sir Thomas Davies,
Mr. Drewe, Mr. Ellis, Viscount Elveden, Mr. Ernest Evans, Captain Fairfax, Sir Bertram Falls, Lord Fermoy, Mr. Gardner, Mr. Gibbins, Mr. Grace, Mr. Groves, Mr. Grundy, Captain D'Arcy Hall, Mr. George Hall, Mr. George Hirst, Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook, Captain Arthur Hope, Mr. Austin Hopkinson, Mr. Robert Hudson, Mr. John Jones, Major-General Sir Alfred Knox, Mr. Lamb, Mr. March, Captain Moreing, Mr. Paling, Colonel Perkins, Sir Frank Sanderson, Mr. Shepperson, Major Steel, Mr. Tinne, Mr. Wallhead, Sir Victor Warrender and Sir Francis Watson.

Mr. David REID further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee D (in respect of the Audit (Local Authorities) Bill): Lord Balniel, Sir Gervase Beckett, Mr. Boothby, Captain Brass, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Henry Cautley, Mr. Duff Cooper, Mr. Arthur Greenwood, Captain Gunston, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Harney, Major Harvey, Mr. James Hudson, Mr. Lansbury, Miss Lawrence, Mr. Lawson, Sir Douglas Newton, Sir Asshetim Pownall, Mr. Sutton and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — OUSE DRAINAGE BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I beg to move That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Ouse Drainage Bill embodies proposals to solve nationally a long-standing difficulty which has been proved to be outside the power of the Great Ouse Drainage area to solve for itself. The proposals of the Bill are based on the very careful researches of a special and expert Committee. The Order Paper shows that it is opposed from two quarters, firstly, because hon. Members opposite argue that without nationalisation of the land any generous help to drainage is not justified. I think that argument will be considerably discounted by the House if they will look at Page 17 of the Report of this Special Commission, in which they will find an account of how the Labour Government, in 1924, offered up to £1,500,000 to the Ouse area—£1,000,000 on loan and £500,000 as a free gift—without any stipulation whatever about nationalisation.

Mr. RILEY: Did the right hon. Gentleman say Page 17?

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg pardon. It is Paragraph 17 on Page 8. The other Amendment is put on the Paper by hon. Members who represent the area. It is perhaps the only type of Amendment upon which the diverse interests of the uplanders and the lowlanders could possibly' agree, but I shall be surprised if the lowlanders can ignore the danger which has been reported in such grave terms by the Special Commission, or can seriously contemplate that six months hence we shall fall back, by the lapse of the Suspensory Order and the running off of the Government guarantee, to the deadlock of passive resistance which brought about a kind of civil war in the Ouse drainage area in 1923 and 1924. I think these districts would be very ill-advised to sacrifice the generous grant that is now offered and to undertake to bear unaided the heavy burdens which, so far, seem to be far beyond their local resources. The House will understand that local objection is only to be expected in a Bill of this complexity if they will
consider the history of this controversy. With so many diverse and conflicting interests I do not think it is humanly possible to draft any scheme which would obtain unanimous support among those affected.
4.0 p.m.
The Ouse is the third longest river in this country. It rises in Northamptonshire, and it takes the waters of seven different administrative counties. It runs through a very flat country draining a total of about 2,000,000 acres, of which 360,000 acres are below the tidal level. The drainage of that vast area began long ago. It engaged serious attention in the time of Henry VIII, legislation was passed in the time of Queen Elizabeth, and it was undertaken on a great scale in the time of Charles I and the Commonwealth. The dykes constructed by the Dutch engineer, Vermuyden, which short-circuit the eastward bend of the Ouse River, and which run straight for 21 miles between Earith and Denver Sluice, are still the backbone of the system as it exists to-day. On either side of the tidal channel, 40 miles in length, there grew up numerous internal drainage authorities, but until a Provisional Order was passed in 1920 setting up the Ouse Drainage Board no single authority was empowered to keep order on the main artery of the drainage area. The system was so unsatisfactory that in 1918 the Ministry was petitioned to set up a central body, and the Act of 1920 constituted the Ouse Drainage Board, to cover an area of about 470,000 acres. Of that 470,000 acres, 120,000 being higher lands, the owners complained that they received no direct benefit, and they bitterly resented paying rates. Their position and the passive resistance which developed spread to the Fen area. The position became so grave that an inquiry was held in 1924 which showed that no amending Order to solve the troubles was possible under the present law. After protracted negotiations, which continued throughout the time during which hon. Members opposite were in office, a suspensory Order was passed under the present Government at the beginning of 1925 to take the upland areas out of the district until the end of the year 1927, and it was agreed with all parties that a Commission
should be appointed meanwhile to examine and recommend a permanent solution. That Commission of experts which sat under the chairmanship of Sir Horace Monro, himself an expert of great experience in rating law as having been Permanent Secretary to the Local Government Board, made an exhaustive examination of the subject from the engineering, from the rating and from the financial standpoint, and they produced a unanimous Report upon which the present Bill is founded. I want to take this opportunity of expressing publicly our very great debt to that special Commission for the ability and the industry which they devoted to their task. That Report had a very wide circulation, and it was considered by the Ouse Drainage Board. That body, representing many conflicting interests, naturally objected strongly to certain recommendations, but none the less they united in a request to the Government to adopt this Report as the only way they knew of securing a settlement. Since then I have received several deputations on the subject, and, where possible to secure agreement on subsidiary details which did not affect the main issue of the Report, I have provided minor amendments in this Bill, but on all major issues we have followed the recommendations of the Commission.
I think I can best explain the scheme if I refer to the main Clauses of the Bill. The first two Clauses constitute a new drainage board for that district which is set out on the map deposited with the Bill. That district covers the whole catchment area of the River Ouse, nearly 2,000,000 acres. Within the larger district there is the Ouse drainage district proper, the district where there is a necessity for land drainage, and where it is not merely a matter of getting rid of flood water. The drainage district is bounded by a contour line 20 feet above Ordnance datum. Within that drainage district, which, for convenience, I may perhaps call the lowlands, the new Board will be able to levy rates and they will not be able to levy rates anywhere outside the lowlands. The remainder of the watershed, something over 1,500,000 acres, will make a small contribution under Clause 4 which I will explain when I come to it.
The first two Clauses also provide for a new drainage Board to deal with what is to be called the South Level. That area will, for the purposes of the main tidal channel, like the whole of the catchment area, be rated by the Ouse Board for work for which they are responsible. The new authority will be responsible for the smaller arteries which discharge into the main channel and which include the rivers Wissey, Little Ouse, Lark and Cam. These rivers are all now administered direct by the present Ouse Drainage Board, and therefore the new Board will have a smaller direct responsibility for these drainage works than the existing Board has at present.
The third Clause deals with rating. As I have mentioned, rating is to be imposed only on the lowlands. It is to be assessed at a uniform rate in the £, not on the flat,acreage system which has caused such a feeling of injustice under the present scheme. All rates will be owners' rates, even though they are actually payable by the occupier. The occupier when he pays them will, of course, have a right of recovery from the owner. In the South Level Area, therefore, the rates will be either owners' rates or occupiers' rates as the case may be under the present law; but the rates of the new Ouse Board, will all be those of owners'. The property liable to these rates will be the whole of the area which falls within the 20 foot contour line as shown on the deposited map, and it will no longer be open to the ratepayer to appeal to Quarter Sessions on the ground that his land received no direct benefit in the drainage works.
Clause 4 requires contributions from the county councils in the catchment area. Those contributions will take two forms. In the area which is liable to rating direct, that is the lowland area, the county council will pay 6d. per acre as an insurance charge. The principle upon which the special Commission advised this charge is that the local authorities responsible for these low-lying areas stand to lose large sums by damage to public property and public health, and by the loss of rateable value which would result from extensive flooding of the area liable to inundator. They therefore propose that this cost should fall in the case of that district on the whole
county, that the whole county should be responsible for this 6d. charge. The remainder of the catchment area, 1,500,000 acres outside the 20-foot line, will be called upon for a contribution of 2d. an acre for the whole of the acreage within the watershed line, but that contribution will be limited to an amount represented by one quarter of the total expenses of the Board.

Mr. RILEY: Who will pay the contributions?

Mr. GUINNESS: There is a distinction drawn in the recommendations of the Commission. In the case of the local authorities' contributions in the lowland area, they recommend that as it is an insurance charge it should in all cases be spread over the whole county. In the case of the 2d. contribution from the uplands, they leave to the county authority's discretion whether that 2d. is charged upon the particular land concerned or whether it is spread over the whole county. This charge of 2d. is, of course, a new principle. It will mean that this upland area of 1,500,000 acres will find itself responsible for one-eighth of the total expenditure, which will chiefly take the form of the service of loan. I know that this principle will necessarily excite a good deal of discussion and a good deal of opposition, hut although in this form there is no exact precedent for it, it is not altogether new. It was recommended by a Select Committee on Land Drainage which reported just 50 years ago. There is a precedent for such a contribution in a private Act of the county of Middlesex, where the whole of the county is liable to contribute to the drainage purposes over the whole administrative area. There are also provisions in Lancashire, in the West Riding of Yorkshire and in Surrey whereby county councils can charge any cost incurred by their respective Drainage Acts to the county fund.
But I do not ask the House to assent to this principle merely because of precedent. I ask their support to it on its merits. Under the conditions which obtain in the lowland area, the old doctrine of benefit dons not seem to be a-sufficient test for the fair incidence of charge, and it appears to be just to supplement that contribution by one representing the cost to the lowlands of the
necessary engineering work for avoiding the water from those upland areas. The Ouse Board will only look after the main channels. The Fens will be responsible for their internal drainage, just as they are at present. These Fens live under the shadow of what is in effect a great reservoir of tidal water 40 miles long. This reservoir could easily rid itself of the water which the Fens alone pump into it over the embankment, but the problem of the Ouse and the danger of flooding arise very largely from the upland waters which have to be held up within this reservoir until the falling tide lets them escape into the sea. There is very little silting-up of this main channel owing to Fen water which, in its sluggish progress, deposits the solids for the most part in the Fen drainage area itself, and heavy cost is involved in disposing of the mud which is sent down from the uplands and deposited in the tidal channel. Great changes have taken place in the 250 years since Cornelius Vermuyden made his great dykes. Land drainage has enormously developed and has involved a far higher strain on those dykes than they were ever built to stand. Under drainage has been created, macadam roads, new houses and new towns have combined to send more water down to the tidal area. These new developments have decreased the amount of water which is disposed of by percolation through the soil or by filtration, and it means that a greater volume of upland water is sent more rapidly into the already over-burdened tidal reservoir. It is no answer in this case to say that the lowlands have borne these burdens since the time of Henry VIII. In the time of Henry VIII there was no education rate and there was no poor rate. But these charges have long ago been enforced even in the case of those who gain no benefit from the services for which they pay. There is, surely, a far stronger case for a communal contribution where, although there is no benefit on the part of the upland area, the avoiding of their water imposes a definite and heavy cost on other areas who are in no way responsible.
Clause 5 provides a Government contribution of one-half of the cost of the work recommended by the Commission
and detailed in the Schedule. These works are estimated to cost £2,500,000. I recognise that it is a very drastic precedent for the Government to undertake to find so large a sum as a million and a quarter for this scheme. We think, however, that it is justified by the urgency of the danger, by the inability of local resources to bear the whole cost, and because we cannot allow this great tract of fertile agricultural land to go out of cultivation by disastrous flooding. The whole financial scheme, therefore, is now before the House. One-half of the cost of these new works will be borne by the State. Three-eighths of the cost will be shared between the ratepayers of the lowlands, and the contribution of 6d. per acre to be paid by the local authority on behalf of each acre in the lowland area. One-eighth will be found as a wayleave charge to deal with the million and a half acres which send their water down from the uplands.
The twentieth Clause deals with the purchase rights of the Norfolk Estuary Company. That company have for the past 80 years been given powers by Parliament to carry out drainage and land reclamation works. They have carried out extensive operations in diverting the mouth of the River Ouse, and incidental to those powers there are certain reclamation rights. Under the present Bill it is proposed that the Ouse shall be carried out between training walls into the deep water of the Wash, and it is expected that there will be a great accretion of land. As the works are to be paid for as to 50 per cent. by a Government grant, we consider that the benefit of any further reclamation should be enjoyed by the State. We have, therefore, negotiated the arrangement embodied in this Clause for a surrender of the reclamation rights of the Norfolk Estuary Company for 23,000 acres of land for a sum of £4,500.
The First Schedule lays down the membership of the new Ouse Board which will control the district during the period of ten or twelve years while the State-aided scheme of works is being carried out. It will consist of 11 members, with a majority nominated by the Government.
The Third Schedule gives a list of the works which are to be carried out with Government assistance on the main tidal
river, besides the provision of training walls into deep water. They include the proper pitching of the banks of the main river for about 22 miles upstream and the cutting through of an important bend. It also makes provision for other works, for the building of certain sluices and the raising of certain causeways.
Much of this Bill is very technical and involves questions of rating and engineering details. For that reason, I think, it is not very easy to thrash it out in detail without experts on the Floor of the House. It will, of course, be a hybrid Bill—private because it affects local conditions, but public because it includes a very large amount of public money. In accordance with precedent, I shall move that this Bill be committed to a joint Select Committee of both Houses, so that these technical matters can be thrashed out by the expert witnesses only once and that promoters and opponents will be saved the cost of these proceedings in both Houses. I am aware that the Bill will arouse considerable opposition, but I am convinced that the diversity of interests in this district are so great that no Bill could be drawn which would not arouse objections from one quarter or another. The scheme which I have outlined is the result of Years of controversy and patient negotiation and examination by the Department and by the Special Commission. The Report of that Commission contains grave warnings as to the danger of delay. I think I need only read one short passage. After describing the conditions, they say:
Menaced on the one hand by the sea and on the other by the ever-present danger of flooding from the higher lands above, this large district is obviously now exposed to unusual risks of inundation which long-continued neglect has now made imminent.
There are many such passages in the Report. We feel that to allow these imminent risks to continue would be to incur a responsibility which the Government are not prepared to take.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has made any reference to the Royal Commission mentioned in the Amendment on the Order Paper.

Mr. GUINNESS: I think I did just refer to it. I referred to the Amendment. I think I was interrupted, as a matter of fact, just at that point, when I was
beginning to refer to the Amendment which proposes to postpone the Bill until the Royal Commission has reported. I am quite prepared now to deal with the necessity for acting upon the recommendations of the Select Committee instead of waiting for the Royal Commission. I had not intended to discuss that matter until I had heard the case of those who asked for the postponement, and, I think, in the ordinary way, it will probably be more convenient if I do not at the present time take up any more of the time of the House but reserve my answer until I have heard their case.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: Will my right hon. Friend mind repeating the short reference he made to the County Council of Middlesex, because I think he is rather misinformed?

Mr. GUINNESS: I had better try and find it in the Report:
Under certain of their General Powers Acts the Middlesex County Council exercise powers of a drainage authority within their area and discharge the cost of doing so by a rate levied throughout the county.
If I did not accurately represent that passage, I much regret it.

Sir H. NIELD: I should like to tell my right hon. Friend that I think even that passage is inaccurate. The powers possessed by the Middlesex County Council are really in relation to the pollution of streams and were obtained in 1898 as a result of the pollution of the River Brent. There is in operation in a portion of the County of Middlesex a joint drainage board to which members come from Middlesex, Essex anti Hertfordshire, but that is far from satisfactory. I speak as a member of the Lea Conservancy, which has only rights to regulate the water in the river itself, and is a pollution authority over the larger part of the watershed. I think that if the matter is inquired into it will be found, as to drainage, there are very inadequate powers.

Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House, while recognising the need for the efficient drainage of the area drained by the River Ouse and its tributaries, cannot approve of any method involving the granting of subsidies by the State which does not secure for the expenditure incurred a satisfactory return by means of the public ownership of the land affected.
The question of the Ouse is a very urgent one, and it is absolutely sound policy on the Minister's part to bring forward a Bill to deal with it. We are in this difficulty, that while it has become an emergency matter the country is not provided, as yet, with a full inquiry into the general principles which should guide a drainage policy. It would have been happier if the Royal Commission had been appointed years ago and had been at hand with a report with regard to the practical schemes which the Minister embarked upon in the Bill of last year and which he is pursuing. The Minister said that he was at liberty to treat lightly the Amendment that I am bringing forward, because it is not consistent with the action taken by the Labour Government in 1924. The Minister said, "It is all very well for the Labour Front Bench, but when in office these very people made an offer of a million and a half towards the cost of urgent works." What they really did, was to propose that a million and a half should be spent, and that the Government should, after repayment of loans by the Board, be responsible for £500,000, one-third of the expense—a considerable difference, I may observe, between £500,000 and £1,250,000. But I do not defend, in principle, the policy to which the Labour Government, in the emergency years of 1923, 1924 and 1925 was driven. The matter is urgent, and it would have been, and always will be, a sound plan to proceed on the principle embodied in this Amendment, but while the Minister has power at his disposal, we were not quite free, as everyone knows, to follow what policy we chose.
Something ought to be clone and done quickly. The Minister suggests that we should have been consistent and that we should have proceeded to acquire land at the Ouse basin. Certainly it would have been a kind suggestion if he had made it at the time, but hardly a practical one if he wanted us to remain in office. Therefore, we followed the only practical course. That proposal was rejected, and we followed it up with the inquiry presided over by Mr. Jones, which was followed up by the Commission appointed in 1925. That Commission did its work extremely well, and I should like to join in the praise which has been accorded to the chairman and his colleagues for producing such an
interesting report. But, while we admire the work he did, he would be the first to admit that from the financial side they would have been in a much sounder position if the Royal Commission on Finance had already reported for guidance.
Just at the start, what is the principle that ought to be followed in questions of public money spent upon drainage? Surely no one would deny that what the owner gains he ought to recoup—he ought: to pay for. There is no occasion for benefaction or dole. I will come to that later when I deal with the Bill of last year. Then you have the question how to assess the benefit. Where land is improved, it would not surpass the wit of man to devise a scheme, and the Minister in this very Bill proposes that, if the town gains as the result of the work, there shall be in the future a new assessment of the advantage accruing to King's Lynn, and a levy shall be made on the town. That seems to be an absolutely sound principle, and I should like to urge the Ministry to extend it more widely. Why cannot that which applies to one area apply to another? In such an area as the lowland district, it may be possible to assess the improvements which result. But that does not cover the ground, because here you are not dealing as you generally are in cases of drainage with adding to the value of land, but you are saving this land from destruction. It is a very peculiar case. You are really threatened, as the Minister put it, when quoting from the report, with inundations which would mean the return of hundreds of thousands of acres to primeval fen.
The fens are extraordinarily interesting and attractive districts. They produce valuable things in the way of natural history. If the Minister visited the Denver sluice he would be surprised as I was to find that it was an extremely good place for sea trout fishing. That is the result of artificial works. If you allow the fens to return to their primeval state, you would bring back the reeve, the swallow-tail butterfly, the will-o'-the-wisp, not to speak of the bittern. But it is a fact that it may return to that primeval state unless we are careful. What does that mean in regard to finance? It means in reality
that the freehold of land in that area is not to be regarded as the same as the freehold of land in other places. It is a very precarious form of property It is like the fag-end of a lease which may be gone next year. The value which it has in the market, apart horn the expectation of State help, is a very few years' purchase indeed, and it is one reason why it is extraordinarily difficult to deal with the problem except on the basis of acquisition. It is not a very revolutionary idea. The whole area required may not be so great as the acreage of the public land up and down England.
May I say, in regard to the other Amendment on the Paper, that I agree as to the difficulties and the undesirability of committing the State to action before we have the Report of the Royal Commission. There are not any precedents for subsidies on any great scale such as is now proposed, and by making such a grant a this on this scale you will he setting an example from which it will be difficult to escape. Whatever the Royal Commission say afterwards, in the case, let us say, of East Norfolk, or of the Valley of the Trent which is below sea level, you are committing yourselves in a tremendous policy of expenditure which might easily run to ten millions or more by the fact that you are anticipating the result of the inquiry. That is reinforced by the recent Report known as the 'Agricultural' Output Report, which showed that the area to be saved is greater than we thought. There were estimates of one million acres when I was at the Ministry, but that Report showed that something like 2.000,000 acres is correct. A very large part of this area will be subject to drainage schemes and might land us in an even larger total sum than I suggested. The sum to which you are committing yourselves would undoubtedly be ample to buy the whole of the Ouse catchment area.
The Commission, I hope, will report before long. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us. It is surely possible for the inquiry to be rapid. It might not be impossible even to wait for the judgment of the Commission. Finance was outside the special sphere of the Ouse Commissioners, who are technically expert in other directions.
Then there is another fact. The Minister himself promised a general drainage law. It was before any mention of the Ouse Drainage Bill. We were given last year the Drainage Bill dealing with small schemes, and we were assured that this year we should have the general Bill. That certainly reinforces the case for some delay. The Minister will remember that in Committee on the Bill of last year he spoke very definitely about his intention to produce a general Bill this year.
The main point I want to make is that the proposal is too generous from the point of view of the State. You are paying too much, and I must say that I was impressed by the Minister's readiness—I venture to say his almost abject readiness—to agree in the direction of generosity when the Bill was debated in another place last year. When you deal with the Ouse as a practical matter, and you must get it through, it is very tempting to avoid opposition, and yet you must be easeful that the finance of the Bill is just, not only from the point of view of the local owners, but from the point of view of the public; and it seems to me that the passage in the Report which advocates the 50–50 basis is not unfairly called rather airy.
This matter is not settled by the statement that the affair is urgent, expensive, of great value to the town of King's Lynn, and would create a great deal of employment. All these things are undoubtedly true, but surely irrelevant to the question of finance. The only relevant, argument seems to me to be the inability of the area to sustain so large a charge; but, when we are dealing with a very great payment and a very important precedent, ought we not to be furnished with something rather more objective than that? There should he some estimate of the possible gain, the possible chargeability of the area, and some evidence as to the financial value of the damage which would accrue if the State does not help and if inundation occurred. Then there is this passage on which the Bill is based. It ends in this manner:
In all the circumstances, we think one half would he a fair division,
That is surely quite airy. We can imagine the discussion as to what should be proposed, and it sounded a happy thought to split the difference. It deals with the case in a rough-and-ready way, but at the same time it is a case of taking the easiest way—the broad road which leads, if not to destruction, to great confusion. The area actually benefited and not so much the area outside it seems to me ought to pay more. It may be said: "Supposing this does end in advantageous circumstances for the owners of the land who would otherwise have possibly lost it all. Let that be; that does not matter." From our point of view, that does matter very much. It is a matter of high public morality that you should get as near as possible to the exactly equitable incidence of the cost in relation to the gain. Last year the Minister, in carrying through the Bill of 1926, was asked by myself and others about this question, and he pointed out in Committee that that Bill rightly made no charge upon the public, but that the cost was to be entirely recouped, and Lord Bledisloe in another place considerably amplified that statement. Those were much smaller and very different schemes, but I do not know that the principle is really different. It differs in this way: that you cannot say, in regard to a great scheme, that the owners must do it, all as you would in regard to county schemes, because there is an overriding public interest for which the owners ought not to be charged. But you should say that, where the owners do gain, they ought to contribute to an exact amount.
The Report discusses the time-honoured question between benefit, communal or individual, and it points out that for nearly four centuries the principle of recovery of benefits has been accepted. It surely should not be lightly abandoned, but an attempt should be made to get as near as possible to exactness. This imbroglio into which you have got between the principle of the Provisional Order of 1920 and the plan of the present Bill, shows the extraordinary difficulty of dealing equitably with drainage with a multitude of private properties. It would be simplified if it happened that Crown lands included the lowland area of the Ouse. We have
often thought that the Conservative party are a little careless of public interest compared with private interest, and I should like to ask for much more proof of the exact facts, as nearly as possible, to substantiate the rectitude of fifty-fifty, because we ought to be jealous of the public interest as well as that of individuals. We might apply to ourselves a test of what we feel about this, if we imagine that for some purpose, shortly after the completion of these works, the Minister had occasion to bring in a Bill to acquire part of the land which had been saved by this public expenditure. Surely it would be felt that, with such a recent public expenditure owing to which the land was preserved from destruction, if the State were to acquire it the following year, some allowance ought to be made, some discount, on account of the fact that the State had been really the preserver of the land. If so, that shows that, according to your own standard, you do think the owner ought to contribute to the maximum of his advantage.
It seems to me that, in fact, the owners will gain very much more than they pay. They are faced with absolute confiscation. No confiscation threatened by a Communist government, if we had one, would be more imminent than the confiscation by natural causes with which they are faced if nothing is done; and the land, in many cases, is valueless except for the aid which is now proposed. About 300,000 acres are, you may say, going to be created, worth let us say, £30 to £40 an acre. You are going to create a value of £10,000,000. Supposing this were public land. If it had been one of the Ministry's farms, acquired in war-time in order to increase the national food supply, it would pay the State to spend much more than the £2,500.000 now proposed. It would be an absolutely sound investment, bringing in a very high interest. It would, indeed, be a sound investment if you spent anything, nearly, up to the value which the land would represent when created, because it does amount almost to the creation of land. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be no grievance to the owners if, to a much greater extent, the expenditure were made a charge upon them. It was two-thirds that we pro-
posed to levy upon them, and surely that would be not at all an unfair burden. There is, of course, a public interest, and there ought to be some public contribution, but the owner ought not to be enriched, as in many cases he surely will be. Instead of losing his land, he is going to be presented with land, in a few years, worth, say, £30 an acre. I think he is only being asked to pay £3 an acre, the whole outlay being about £6 an acre. That, I think, is the case which I feel strongly has to be answered by much more objective argument.
I would like to ask the Minister if he would explain rather more exactly why there are two Boards, and why it would not be simpler to let the Ouse Board have the South Level, and unify the whole question. As to the Norfolk Estuary Company, why should the property not be transferred to the Ministry, rather than to the Crown? I do not see what reason there is for particularly preferring that the Commissioners of Crown Lands should control it. Is there any valuation of the rights of the Norfolk Estuary Company? That is not set out in any detail in the Report. I do not know, also, whether it would not be a simplification if the State acquired the whole property of the Norfolk Estuary Company? You get disputed interests and I should think that it would be simpler to make one bite at the cherry. I have always been rather puzzled to know why we deal only with the basin of the Ouse in this connection. If you travel across the Fens, I imagine no human being could tell you when you passed from the basin of the Ouse to the basin of the Nene, or from the Welland to the Witham. Is there any physical reason why the Nene Valley is not in as great danger as the Ouse Valley? The Report urges that it is quite fair for the uplands to pay their share. If so, I cannot see why the upland counties have been taken out. There was some trouble, and I suffered from it myself. There was burning, and violence, I think, in Buckinghamshire, but there does not seem to be a distinction between Buckinghamshire and West Norfolk. Certainly when you get to East Norfolk, which has its own expenses, and by no possibility can drain into the Ouse, there surely is much less obligation to find part of the sum pro-
posed—2d.—than there is upon Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire.

Mr. GUINNESS: There has been a readjustment of the lowland area. The whole of the catchment area is left in the jurisdiction of the new Board, and so far as Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire include part of the Ouse catchment area, they remain in.

Mr. BUXTON: I was under the impression that certain counties have been taken out.

Mr. D. HERBERT: No such luck.

Mr. BUXTON: Then we ought to know why the counties concerned should not have more representation, both on the temporary board and the permanent board. Ought they not to have an option as to the incidence of the rate, both in regard to the lowland area and the upland area? It does seem to me that, it hon. Members opposite had not been prejudiced in favour of private land as against the extension of public land, the practical proposal would be immensely simplified by the acquisition of this particular area. It is not too big an undertaking. In this case, it would be simpler than in any part of the country, because almost everywhere else you are complicated by residential amenity value. The Fens are our one conspicuous example of purely business agriculture. There is very little amenity value, and the land is devoted to farming, almost exclusively, in a business way. You would have the incidental advantage of bringing under unified management the agency of the district. That is a benefit that would accrue through acquisition everywhere. You would get better control of repairs, of buildings, of management, and possibly a stimulus towards better marketing which everyone admits is wanted. In the case of the number of years purchase, I should suggest that, because of the absence of amenity value, Income Tax value would be quite unobjectionable to the owners of that land. Where exceptional treatment would be needed would be in regard to the number of years purchase, and you would want an expert estimate which would command respect.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: What area and what acreage is it that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to treat in this way?

Mr. BUXTON: I should suggest the whole lowland area, because I think the lowland area would quite properly bear the whole cost which is not borne by the State.

Sir D. NEWTON: The whole of the Fens.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. BUXTON: The particular area coloured in the map. If you went to an arbitration under the Land Acquisition Act, it might be claimed as land virtually permanent, and you would be asked to pay the ordinary market value. But the only ground on which it has a claim to permanency value is that it expects public aid. It is not really a reasonable expectation of public aid on which you can claim, because there has not been public aid up to now. Therefore, I think the State could quite fairly acquire that land at a very small number of years purchase, It so happens that the Crown Land Commissioners have investments actually on hand of the amount which it is proposed that the State should grant. Why should not the Crown Land Commissioners be empowered—the Minister might do it in a Bill this evening in Committee—to acquire land of that kind under a special assessment of its value? On a fair assessment, about £1,250,000 would probably buy the area in question. I urge that what I think we want is a real business Bill, and that is the only rational course by which you can recover the benefits of preservation or improvement which you are to confer. We would have a business Bill if there were not a prejudice in favour of one form of land holding.

Sir HUGH LUCAS-TOOTH: I am sorry, after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) who has just spoken has seen his way to give his support to the proposal which stands in my name, that we on this side of the House cannot be expected to share the same views about his. We on this side of the House have very sincere sympathy with the Minister. From my own point of view, I have tried to co-ordinate a large number of interests in my constituency, and I fully realise the extraordinary difficulty which he must have had in getting these interests co-ordinated in this Bill. We do not want to embarrass the Government, and I wish to make it plain that, in any Division which may be taken upon this
Bill, if we are compelled to vote against it, it will only be in the shape of a protest against the actual provisions of the Bill. I understand that the House will not have an opportunity of discussing the particular provisions on the floor of the House, and that means that hon. Members who are interested will not have a chance of expressing their view.

Mr. GUINNESS: May I state that, on a hybrid Bill of this kind, there is a Committee stage in the House and there will be an opportunity if it is wished to discuss details.

Sir H. LUCAS-TOOTH: Are we to understand that there will be a Committee stage as well as a Report stage?

Mr. GUINNESS: There is a Committee stage and if the Committee amend a Bill there will be a Report stage. A hybrid Bill is dealt with exactly in the same way as an ordinary Bill.

Sir H. LUCAS-TOOTH: If the Bill goes through the Select Committee un-amended, shall we have any opportunity whatsoever of discussing it?

Mr. GUINNESS: The Bill will be recommitted to the Committee of the whole House.

Sir H. LUCAS-TOOTH: I am glad to have that assurance because it will help us to put forward some Amendments that we do want to see made. The right hon Gentleman the Minister for Agriculture said he could not see his way to defer the Bill until the Royal Commission on Land Drainage had made its report, and I want to submit with all deference that the arguments which he put forward were really beside the point. If he will look at the date of the issue of this Report, he will see that it was in December, 1925, 18 months ago. If he has been able to wait for 18 months before taking the Second Reading of this Bill, surely he could very well wait another month or two and get the benefit of the Report of the Commission which has just been set up. He has said that, of course, he might not be able to get the Bill this year, and that the Order on which the present state of affairs rests only lasts until the end of this year. But is there any reason why he could not renew the Order for one more year and in that way have the benefit of the Commission's Report? The fact of the matter is that a Commission is used very frequently as an alibi for
Government responsibility. Although, in this particular case, the Report of this Commission appears to me to be fairly good and I have had the courage, as it were, to recommend it as a whole to the Ouse Drainage Board. I said it was a case of making the best of a bad job, and I recommended them to accept the general Report of the Commission, and that, if they could see their way to do that, it was possible that the Treasury probably would be able to see its way to give them a guarantee or some sort of assurance with regard to their rates. I am very glad to say that the Ouse Drainage Board did not accept what I suggested, because I think they have not received the financial satisfaction to which they are entitled.
I am very glad, from my point of view, to have heard what the right hon. Gentleman the late Minister of Agriculture said, because I can assure him that it will do me no harm my constituency. We hold strongly that the contribution by the Government is by no means large enough. He made very light of the arguments in this Report, but there is one argument which he did not touch upon, and that is that, looking, abroad, we can see that drainage schemes have had very large subsidies. It is with the foreign importer that we have to compete, and if the foreign importer is subsidised to this large extent, it does not really amount to a subsidy to give a grant to the British producer on the same scale. There is another thing with regard to the work to be done by the Ouse Drainage Board. They do not actually represent any benefit to the fen lands. The condition of the land in the Fens at the moment is very good in many places. All that the works are intended to do is to save the Fens from the imminent disaster which the report foretells. In so far as this grant will be used to save a disaster, it will be a return directly to the Treasury, because, when you consider the large increase of national income coming from the Fen district, when you consider alone the Income Tax which these farmers must pay it must at least amount to the Government grant, and, if that grant were not made, it would represent a dead loss to the Treasury by at least that amount. I do not want to excuse myself and I do not think there is any need for me to do so. Although
the great bulk of the opposition to this Bill comes from the uplands, the very most that they can contribute is 2d. an acre. I would remind the House that, in the lowlands, in the fenlands, the drainage rates will be in no case less than 10s. an acre, and in a great number they will be 30s. an acre. For that reason I submit that if this Bill is really to be discussed here, most of the interest should be given to the fenlanders. Because the uplanders have their objection is no real reason for refusing the Bill a Second Reading. They can be taken out if necessary in Committee.
I want to say a word about the actual state of affairs in the Fens, because it is worthy of consideration. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture has already said something about the internal structure of the drainage authorities. Roughly speaking, there are two big divisions of the Fens which are in the Ouse Valley, There is the Middle Level and there is the South Level. The Middle Level is a big area which has been fortunate; that is to say, it has a strong board who have been able to collect large rates and do good work and put their banks and rivers into good condition by means of a penalty which was laid, I think, by Parliament, in cases of rates in an ear. By means of a penalty clause the Middle Level has succeeded in putting themselves, I would not say in a prosperous position but in a very happy position, and they are quite contented that they run no immediate risk whatsoever of inundation or breaking of banks. The South Level has not been so fortunate. Up to date, they have had no real board of their own. They have been, roughly speaking, in the position of a subcommittee of the, main Ouse Drainage Board. As that has led to the works in their area not being so well done since 1920, when they were put into this position, there has been a considerable need for extensive work to be done in the South Level. The result of that has been that, apparently, the Ouse, Drainage Board, with the whole of the funds has been raising rates to be spent in the South Level alone.
The result is that a great deal of ill-feeling has existed on the part of the Middle Level, who thought they had been contributing to works which did not interest them in the least, and in
the South Level, because of the natural reaction of the sentiment. If there is one part of this Bill which is necessary, it is that part which sets up a separate new South Level Board. There is nobody of any sort in the Fens who has any objection to that, and I would like to tell the Minister that we appreciate that part of the Bill, and that we will do nothing whatsoever to try to stop it. It would be perfectly feasible, if necessary, to pass a separate Bill, giving the South Level much the same powers as the Middle Level, putting it on a proper basis and giving it the power to impose a penalty for rates that are in arrears. I am told that, for some reason, it is difficult to get what is known as a Penalty Clause put into local Acts of Parliament, nowadays. I should like to have the reason given why that has not been done which has proved so successful in the Middle Level. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why he has not seen his way to insert a Penalty Clause in the Bill, as an assistance in getting the rates.
With regard to the Third Schedule, which contains the most contentious part of the Bill, it is difficult for us to, criticise it on the Floor of the House. Most of the works that have been put in that Schedule are of a highly technical engineering character, and I do not think that anyone in this House is in a position to say to what extent those works are necessary, and how urgently they should he carried out. There are a great many opinions on this subject. There is a very considerable body of local opinion which considers that the recommendation, so far as putting in the training walls from Lynn out to sea are concerned, is a bad one. There is a strong body of opinion which advocates something in the nature of a sluice, which would cost a great deal less money, and I believe there are other schemes which are favoured. In view of the fact that there are all these differing opinions, I am a little astonished that the Minister has not given us a more definite reason for the fact that he has accepted this scheme, without stopping to consider' any of the others. I am prepared to accept the argument, which he will probably put forward, that it is all part of the scheme and that we must either accept the scheme or leave
it; but if the right hon. Gentleman adopts that attitude, he should make himself responsible for seeing that the scheme is a success.
The estimates which are put into the Report appear to me to have been worked out very loosely. It must have been an extremely difficult estimate to arrive at, more particularly the one for the training walls out to sea. There are many people who believe that the actual cost will be far and away more than is suggested in the estimate. It is possible that the suggested rate will be exceeded twice over in carrying out these works. If the Fens are to be treated in this high-banded way, and run by a Board which is entirely under the control of the Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. Gentleman should say that he is prepared to guarantee the success of the scheme in so far as to say that if it costs a great deal more than is suggested in the estimate, he will be ready to pay the additional cost. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to put forward the scheme as it stands, I am not quite certain to what extent he will find it well received.
At the moment, there is a good deal of hope that in Committee alterations may be made which may make the scheme acceptable. I very much hope that those alterations will be made, because if they are not made, and if the fens are left discontented, there can be no doubt that this scheme will be wrecked upon precisely the same rock as the last scheme. Everybody will decline to pay their rates, and there is no real provision in the Bill which will make it easier than before to raise the rates. Not only will the people object to pay the rates, but the local authorities are already complaining that they will be prejudiced in the collection of their own rates. I believe they object to a considerable extent to the pew burden which is to be put upon them. So far as I read the Bill, although they are to be asked to collect the rates, there is no sort of constraint that they shall do so. It merely says that they "may" do so. If they say: "We cannot collect these rates," the effect will be that the new Board will be in precisely the same difficulty as was the old Board, and if the fens are not satisfied that they are getting proper
treatment the position will be exactly the same as before.
The real difficulty is, that there are a great number of completely isolated interests which are always trying to get the better of the others, each with an admirable case for its own point of view, and each perfectly justified in holding its point of view. I will give a few examples. The uplanders say that they have no reason for contributing because, by the law of gravity, their water automatically comes down and that whatever the lowlanders may do, they will be drained. Therefore, they ask why should they the uplanders, contribute? That is a very sound argument. In the fen lands they say: "The uplands send down their water to us when we least need it. It is mainly due to the new work of drainage in the towns, and so forth, in the uplands that the water comes down quicker than it, used to do, and if the uplanders are to go on embarrasing us they, surely, should pay some wayleave for their waters." That, also, is a sound argument. In the high fenlands the farmers say that they do not run anything like the same risk of flooding and that, therefore, they should not pay so much as the low fenlands. In the low fenlands they say that it rains exactly the same on one acre as another, and as that water will live to be pumped over into the river, in any case, the payment should be equal in both.
Then there is the rich land and the poor land, in regard to which the argument runs on these lines: the rich-landers say "You get the same amount of water on the land," and the poor-land farmer says that the crops on his land are not nearly so heavy as those on the rich farmland and, therefore, cannot possibly be expected to contribute as much as the rich farm. I think that is a perfectly sound argument. Then there are those in the middle level who, in the past, have suffered from high internal rating. They put their banks into a very good state of repair, and they say that they should not now be asked to pay to prevent the catastrophe which is threatening other parts of the Fens. Those on the south level say that they cannot possibly pay for the whole out-fall because, in effect, it will benefit another division of the Fens, because it will make it easier to run the water out
of the internal rivers. There are all these different sets of people and sets of opinions, and it is absolutely impossible to get any sort of scheme which will satisfy all of them.
I should like to submit my ideas as to what can be done, roughly speaking, to improve the scheme as it now stands. I want a new South Level Board set up with the same powers and the same authority as the Middle Level Board. In so far as the works are concerned, if they are really necessary, they can very well be started with the £1,250,000 which, I imagine, will soon be voted by this House. That amount of money will be amply sufficient to put into operation all these works, and to keep them going for a far longer time than it would take any Commission to report. Therefore, we could leave out of the Bill those Clauses which have to do with the collection of rates. I am not advocating that no rates should ever again be levied for the drainage of the Fens, but it seems to me that we could very well defer those Clauses until we get the expert opinions of the Royal Commission, and those opinions could then be embodied in a subsidiary Act, or an amending Act. The actual method of rating for the scheme could, quite well, be put off until next year, without prejudice to putting into operation a single one of the operations recommended by the report.
As far as the rating is concerned, I realise that it is a knotty point and that we should be in exactly the same difficulty in discussing a Bill in connection with that, as we are now. We have to take into account the various aspects which are presented by this question of Fenlands. In the first place, it does rain equally, on the average, upon one acre as upon another, and for that reason I think it is perfectly fair to say that there could be a flat rate per acre for a certain amount over the entire district. I think the rates might be raised in different ways, but at the same time, so as to make up a certain total amount, each division being taxed in proportion. There could be a certain proportion paid by means of a flat rate per acre in respect of the rain which actually falls upon any acre which has to be carried away. There is the question also of whether the land is rich or poor and whether it is high or low. There could be a separate division of lands, and it
could be provided that above a certain level it should be so much, and below a certain level so much. Whether the land happens to be rich or poor, it obviously benefits more or less according to the size of the crops which the land produces. To that extent, the rate could be levied purely through the ordinary rating machinery, on the present assessment, which would give a flat rate to each farmer according to the benefit that he actually receives from the work done by the Ouse Drainage Board.
Finally, I think a penalty Clause is absolutely essential. If you are going to have evasions of rating it means that the man who succeeds in avoiding the payment of his rates gets the better of the honest man every time, and when the honest men see that they come to the conclusion that their only means of self defence is to refuse to pay their rates. In that way the whole district takes up arms and refuses to carry out the scheme, which only makes it more expensive for everybody in the long run. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will be able to give way in Committee to those Amend-which I have suggested, and that he will give us some idea this evening as to what extent he will be able to meet our demands.

Mr. RILEY: I desire to support the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton), not because I am opposed to the necessary work of drainage in the Fen area. I associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman said, that we of the Labour party are as anxious as hon. Members opposite to see schemes of improvement carried through which will benefit agriculture. We do not underestimate the gravity of the situation with which agriculturists of the Fen area are face to face with to-day, and, therefore, we do not put forward this Amendment because we are opposed to the Government rendering all the assistance it can in order to improve the drainage of the Fen area for the benefit of agriculture. It is only when we come to the incidence of the cost that we differ from hon. Members opposite. The impression I got when the Minister of Agriculture was introducing this Bill was that such rating as was going to be applied in order to meet the costs of this scheme was really going to fall on the owners of land in the area.
He said that of the £2,500,000, which it was expected would be required for the scheme, the State was going to provide £1,250,000, but, having said that, the Minister of Agriculture went on to say that the rest would be raised by rates, The impression I received, and other hon. Members on this side also received the same impression, was that for the rest the owners were to be responsible, but as he developed his argument he said that the incidence of the half which was not to be borne by the State would be a communal incidence falling upon all classes. How he reconciles his earlier statement with his later statement I do not know.
What are the facts as to the incidence of the cost of the scheme, even as set forth by the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon, and also as set forth in the Report of the Commission, which I have read from the first page to the last. I have tried to make myself acquainted with all its implications. The facts are these; that there is going to be a scheme of drainage carried out which is going to be very beneficial, certainly to over a million acres of land and which, indirectly, will improve probably 2,000,000 acres of land. In the case of the grass uplands its effect may be somewhat small, but as far as the lowlands are concerned, as I hope to show from the evidence of the Commission's Report, the improvement is going to be very substantial indeed. The scheme is to cost £2,500,000, of which the State is going to provide £1,250,000. The occupiers, those who are liable for drainage rates in the lowlands, are going to provide three-eighths of the remainder, and as far as I have been able to find out up to the present time it is not the owners of the lowlands as such who are going to be liable for providing this three-eighths but he occupiers, as occupiers. The only portion of the £2,500,000 which may possibly fall on the shoulders of the owners whose land is going to be enormously improved is the one-eighth, which is to be contributed by the 1,500,000 acres in the uplands. And even that is optional. In the Bill it is optional as to whether that one-eighth shall be placed upon the general ratepayers of the area concerned. This one-eighth may be placed, if it is so desired upon the occupiers concerned.
What does that amount to? I submit that the scheme, from the point of view of finance, is entirely unsound, and is unfair to the remainder of the community. The whole of the taxpayers of the country, the taxpayers in Lancashire, Yorkshire, Durham, Northumberland, and all the industrial centres of the country, are to be called upon for a contribution of £1,250,000 in order to improve the land of a certain number of landowners in the Fen area. I congratulate the hon. Member opposite on his honesty and straightforwardness in saying that he is not satisfied with this Bill, because the State is not finding all the money. He is making the most of a bad job; he is getting only £1,250,000 instead of £2,500,000 out of the taxpayers' pockets. I submit that there are only two equitable methods by which a scheme of this kind can be fairly carried out by the Government. If the agency of the State is to be utilised for special interests, in order to, give assistance without which the special objects may not be accomplished, and if that assistance is going to confer benefit on certain sections of the corn-inanity then those sections should pay for the benefits which are conferred. If that is not acceptable, then it is for the State to acquire the land at present-day values, expend money on improving it and reap the benefit from the expenditure. What does the Commission say with regard to the position of Fenlands under the present system of drainage. On page 49 there is this paragraph:
Any failure of efficient drainage practically destroys the letting value of fen land for agricultural purposes. Properly drained fen land has at the present time a rental value of from 30s. to 40s. per acre, whereas lands badly drained and subject to the risk of summer flood, and devoid of a clay subsoil, will not realise more than from 5s. to 10s. per acre.
We are told in the Report that much of this land, which it is proposed to deal with under this scheme, is now on the verge of becoming productive, but if this work is not carried out then inundation sooner or later is inevitable. That is land owned by private owners. Under this Bill we are being asked to spend over £1,000,000 out of public money to preserve the productive quality of land in the Fen area in order that owners
may regain their rents of 40s. per acre. On the same page I also notice that the Commission, referring to the Wash Land Grazing says:
The Wash lands lying between the Old Bedford and Hundred Foot River, containing about 4,765 acres, are very valuable pasture lands in a dry summer, and can be stocked for rather more than four months in the year (from May to September); they are very healthy for cattle and horses, the stock being able to obtain a plentiful supply of fresh water, and not being troubled with flies. A small part, probably not exceeding one-fifth, is mown for hay, but this is a somewhat risky venture, as a summer flood occasionally carries off the produce. Sonic 25 years ago, these summer pasture lands used to command an average rent of from 40 shillings to 45 shillings an acre, but in consequence of the increase in late years of summer floods they have been much reduced in value and realise from 25 shillings to 30 shillings per acre only.
What is the purpose of the expenditure of this money, one-half of which is to be State money? It is to restore to those lands the rent-producing qualities which they had years ago. If that be not the purpose, then what is the purpose? I realise that there is a certain amount of general convenience to industry and commerce involved in connection with the port of King's Lynn and other ports in the Wash, but the inevitable effect is to increase the productive quality of the soil and restore the rents which depreciated with the decrease in productivity. When the argument is used from this side, in the public interest, that if we spend public money the public ought to reap the advantage, I know the reply is often made that it is not true to say that the expenditure of public money will increase the rents. I submit, however, that the testimony of the Commission, which I have just quoted, is to the opposite effect. Let me also give the words of Sir Francis Acland, who was formerly a Member of this House, representing an agricultural area. In a letter written to the "Manchester Guardian,'' only a fortnight ago, he says:
As regards the tenant any improvement in the productivity of his farm is, by the ordinary play of supply and demand, translated within half a generation into terms of rent.
And so the policy of the Government in this Bill is to utilise the taxpayers' money, drawn from all sections of the community, in order that the land in the Fen area may be so improved that
the owners of that land may regain lost rents or maintain existing rents, or in other ways make their land more valuable than it is at present. I submit that policy is against the public interest, and I associate myself with the Amendment. We object to this Bill, not because it carries out a scheme of great benefit to this district but because the incidence of its finance is inequitable and unfair. If public money is to be spent in this way, the asset created by that expenditure ought to accrue to the State. That principle is embodied even in Clause 6 of this Bill in reference to the port of King's Lynn. Why is it not embodied in the Clauses dealing with the land in general? In Clause 6 we find these words:
The Ouse Board may, at any time after the completion of any of the works specified in Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act, or of any part of any such work, require the mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the borough of King's Lynn, the King's Lynn Conservancy Board and the King's Lynn Docks and Railway Company, or any of those bodies, to pay to the Board, by way of contribution towards the amount falling to be defrayed by the Board in connection with the execution of the said works, an amount representing the value of the improvement which has resulted, or which it is calculated will result, to the port or to the trade of King's Lynn by reason of the execution of the said work or part of a work.
Why should not the same principle apply to the whole value of the land? It would not be impossible for a valuer to compute the value of the improvement which is going to take place as a result of this expenditure. The only equitable way of dealing with the matter would be to declare that the owner should pay for the improvement which his land values receive as a consequence of the expenditure, or, on the other hand, that the Government should schedule the area, acquire it as public land and thus reap the benefit of this expenditure.

Mr. DEAN: I make no apology for intervening thus early in the Debate and I may at once say that I have no interest in the Ouse area particularly, but I have a considerable knowledge of the drainage of the Wash and of the East Coast generally. We have heard to-day in the House a good deal of talk about the highlanders and the lowlanders which rather reminds one of the talk which one sometimes hears about the highlanders
and lowlanders of Scotland. I felt that I should like to intervene between the highlanders and the lowlanders on this occasion and, indeed, I think that to do so will be of some public service. So far as my own personal interests are concerned I have had for many years an equal interest in the highlands of this country and the lowlands, but I have been largely concerned with the lowlands and I have considerable knowledge of the drainage of the Fens. As the Minister reminded us, it is now something like 50 years since we first thought of a Drainage Bill in this country. I remember it, I am sorry to say, only too well. For 50 years it has been a subject of discussion between highlanders and lowlanders, but very little has been done. I have listened to the arguments used by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite concerning their attitude on this question. Their fear is lest the landowner should get some undue benefit from this proposal. I would like to remind them that in the past the landowners have developed these lands and brought them into a high state of cultivation at very great cost to themselves.
What is the situation in regard to this problem? In the case of the Wash over the last 70 or 80 years there has been proceeding gradually a certain amount of accretion and it was in 1883 that the Witham Commissioners and the Black Sluice Commissioners, of which I now have the honour to be chairman, with the Boston Harbour Trust were enabled to make a deep cut into the Boston Deeps and thus save running their waters over the accretion of sand which occurred every year. I believe that our Trust was the only one that carried out that expenditure, and I may say that it has been justified time and again. Now there is talk, I believe, of developing the Welland area and also this great area of the valley of the Ouse. I think Members of the House, on whatever side they may sit, will admit that an accretion on the coast which is going to stop water flowing into the sea is a national calamity the removal of which ought to be assisted by the State. I believe the State fully realises their responsibility. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have themselves admitted that when they were in office they attempted to do something.
They offered some assistance, but that assistance, probably, was not sufficiently generous, and was not accepted. At all events, they admitted the principle and agreed that something ought to be done.
In so far as the Ouse drainage area is concerned I do not agree in toto with the Bill as it stands. I am sorry that we cannot have a Bill dealing not only with the Ouse drainage, but with a general scheme of drainage for the whole country. I believe such a scheme is to be inquired into, and some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and on the other side as well, suggest that we should wait until we get that inquiry. We have all read of the Mississippi floods. I do not want to be pessimistic, but I have known for 35 years the area of which we are now talking, and I know that area has always, been in jeopardy. I have seen several breaches in that area and I know it is more and more in jeopardy every year, for this reason, that the banks across those Fens are made of soft black soil, and that soil is gradually settling and consequently the banks are gradually settling. If you consult the engineers there you will find that those banks are from 18 inches to 2 feet lower than they were 50 years ago. That is not the fault of the landowners; it is a question of time.
6.0 p.m.
In this Bill in Clause 4 it is suggested that the lowlands in a certain area should pay at the rate of 6d. per acre. In that connection I have in mind the parish of Thorney in Cambridgeshire. As most people in agriculture know, that parish has been very highly farmed and a great deal of money was spent on it by the late owner, and it is in a most efficient condition. There is a very high drainage rate, and though Thorney, drains through the Nene and does not in any way touch the Ouse, yet Thorney is going to be asked by this Bill to pay 6d. per acre in addition to the county rate which is to be levied on the whole of Cambridgeshire. I know the Minister will probably say, as I think he did say in his opening remarks, that if we take the land in the Ouse drainage area and keep it in a good state, we shall be able to rate it, but if it is allowed to become derelict, the country will lose much of the rateable value. That is all very well as an argument, but I think that Thorney has a
right to say, "But if we had not spent money on our own drainage you would not have been able to rate our land." My own idea is that each county should have its own catchment area, and that the whole of the highlands should pay a rate of 2d. per acre, and that that amount should be taken out of the county rates and divided amongst the respective catchment areas. One part of the county of Buckingham, for example, drains into the Thames, and another part into the Ouse, but you are going to put a rate on the whole county of Buckingham, including the part which drains into the Thames, in order to pay for this Ouse scheme.
If when the Bill gets into Committee the Minister can see his way to make an alteration of that kind, I am sure it will be appreciated by my hon. Friends who sit behind me, and who, I believe, are interested in Buckinghamshire and Cambridgeshire, and various other shires, and I hope, after the remarks I have made, that they will not talk quite so strongly as they had intended in opposition to this Bill. For 50 years now this question of drainage has been before us, but comparatively little has been done, and nothing by the State. Year by year we have improved vast areas of the country both by underdraining and by pumping. There are large areas in the towns where the rain water, falling on the roads and on the roofs of the houses, gets directly into the sea very quickly along the drains, and I believe the Minister is right in suggesting that we ought to have taxation on the basis of rateable value rather than on the basis of acreage. I would appeal to all Members not to let this become a party question. After all these years let us do something in order to assist drainage. On the East coast, if nothing is done, a great deal of valuable land must go out of cultivation. I think this scheme for draining the Lynn channel through the Wash is a good one, and it is all important that we should not delay matters, but I do believe the day will come when we shall drain the channel of the Ouse, the channel of the Witham and the channel of the Welland all in one into the North Sea, and I think the Government will be able to reclaim a vast amount of land which may prove very useful to the country.

Lord FERMOY: In common with other Members, I think it is very unfortunate that we are called upon to discuss this Bill to-day before we have received the findings of the Royal Commission. While many hon. Members who come from the area to which this Bill applies are very much in favour of the Measure, I think it will have a very disastrous effect upon the agricultural area and on the borough of King's Lynn. In speaking of the borough of King's Lynn I am including the corporation, the Lynn Docks and the Conservancy Board. The three objections I have to the Bill are these. First, that the rates are to be calculated on the rateable value instead of on the acreage. Secondly, I am very much opposed to the inclusion of the borough of Lynn in the scheme for the first time after all these years. The third objection is that the doctrine of benefit is excluded from this Bill. As to basing the rates on the annual valuation of the property, everybody knows the depression which exists in agriculture to-day, and all who have read in this morning's "Daily Mail" a letter Written by a lady living in my Division will bear out the fact that the area around King's Lynn is experiencing the worst period it has had for many years. As to the proposal to include the borough of King's Lynn, they have already a very good sewerage system, which they have to maintain, and theirs, also, is the largest county assessment in the scheme, and I cannot see that they can benefit in any way under the Bill in its present form.
As to the question of building the training walls, a great many of my constituents believe that the expenditure of that money will prove useless and unnecessary unless it is done in the proper way. It is provided in Clause 6 that King's Lynn Dock Company and Conservancy Board will have to make a contribution representing the extent by which it is calculated they have benefited under this scheme, but it is hard to see how the port of Lynn can benefit under that Clause. The Conservancy Board, I think, are quite prepared to pay something towards the expenditure if it is based on a larger tonnage basis. As the Wash channel is today, steamers of 13 feet draught can enter the port, and if the dock dues were greatly increased it would be very easy to avoid to them by moving cargoes to steamers of
smaller tonnage. The value of this Bill to the Port of Lynn is very problematical, and for that reason the Bill as it now stands cannot have my support in any way. I hope that when we get into Committee all the various points that have been brought up by my hon. Friends will be considered, especially the question of putting payment on the acreage basis, excluding the Borough of Lynn from the scheme, and putting in the doctrine of benefit

Sir D. NEWTON: I do not desire to follow the Mover of the Amendment into a discussion on the subject of nationalisation, but many people in the country will be amazed by the preposition he submitted to the House when he suggested that because about £1,500,000 was to be found by the taxpayers 2,000,000 acres of land ought to be nationalised, thus giving to the State a vast area including the cities, towns and villages comprised in it. Surely the State will find a sufficient return in the added Income Tax collectable, in the addition to, and the maintenance of, rateable values, and in the employment which will be found for the industrious people who reside in that area. No little credit is due to the Minister of Agriculture for the courage and pluck he has shown in tackling such a difficult question as that of internal land drainage, because the question always has raised, and probably always will raise, opposition from both friends and foes of a Government. I support the Bill on the ground that this is a great offer of financial aid and assistance to my district, and on the ground that it is urgently necessary that work should be undertaken, but in the confident hope that substantial amendments will be made in the Bill before it eventually reaches the Statute Book.
The Commissioners, in the course of their Report, stated that if the works recommended by them were not carried out the whole Fen area would return to primæval conditions. That, indeed, is a gloomy picture. I hope things are not quite so bad as the Commissioners visualise them. Nevertheless, the position is serious, and the difficulties of drainage in that area are, and always must remain, very great, for the simple reason that there is no finality in anything which is done. Just as a sponge shrinks when it
dries, so does land in that area shrink when drained. In many places the level of drained land has fallen by one, two and even more feet. The final level of the land has not yet been reached, and no one can say what the final settlement will eventually be. This means that banks which are quite sufficient to deal with the water when a drainage scheme is first carried out, subsequently prove to be quite inadequate and have to be strengthened. Perhaps it is because of this need for more drainage, and of the financial assistance which is forecasted in the Bill, that the Ouse Drainage Board give general approval to the Bill. After all, the Bill is a straightforward recognition of national liability, and in that respect I welcome its provisions. It follows precedents which have been established in other countries. In Italy the State pays 56 per cent. on the expenditure of this kind. In France the State frequently pays half the expenditure on drainage schemes, and in Holland, too, very large sums of money are found. In our own country I suggest that it is also necessary for the State to shoulder some portion of the burden of drainage.
I would like to indicate one or two directions in which I hope the Bill will receive amendment. I think the Bill proposes that land up to 20 feet above sea level is to be assessable to drainage tax. Under the Act of 1920, a level of eight feet above the average river level was taken as the datum line for rateable purposes, and in place of that the 20-feet line above sea level has now been substituted. I am not sure that that is the right line to take, and I hope that point will receive careful consideration when this Bill comes before the Select Committee. That line brings a considerable area of new land under these proposals, although it allows a certain area to escape altogether, the argument being, I suppose, that land which is only 20 feet above sea level would be rendered worthless if the existing dykes were swept away. It appears to me that this is a very high level to take.

Mr. GUINNESS: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the 20-feet line on the ordnance is only 15 feet below the ordinary level of spring tide, and the line now proposed is only five feet above the highest tide.

Sir D. NEWTON: I still think that there is some justification for revising this level of 20 feet. In regard to upland contributions, the old and well-established principle of dealing with this question according to benefits received is being done away with. This principle was established under the Bill of Sewers of 1531, and is now being done away with, and a flat rate of 2d. per acre is being substituted. Many local authorities have thought it unfortunate that the Government have not waited for the Report of the Royal Commission, because they feel that a new principle is being introduced in a relatively minor Bill. They believe that considerations of so large a character involving a new principle should have been decided on a major Bill. I would like to say a word or two about the proposed flat rate of 2d. per acre. I feel that some provision should be made in the Bill to provide for special areas such as Cambridge, which comes under this Drainage Bill, and which already raises money from its own ratepayers to maintain the River Cam. We feel that we are now being called upon to contribute twice, and that at any rate the money raised locally for drainage purposes should first of all be credited to us before any further contribution is paid over to another authority.
A rate of 2d. per acre is imposed on all upland areas. I would like to draw attention to the way in which this rate of 2d. per acre will work out in Cambridge. It has to be defrayed as expenses for general county purposes. This sum of 2d. per acre will not work out uniformly. First of all a general sum will be demanded at 2d. per acre, and subsequently that sum will be levied on the assessable value of the property in that area. The result will be that in some cases the charge instead of being 2d. per acre, will actually amount to 7s. or more per acre. There is, in short, a Transmutation Clause in this Bill by which the acreage toll is transformed into an assessment value levy through the medium of the county rate. It seems to me that it would be fairer if this rate were based on a parochial basis. If then you had a parish of 5,000 acres, it would contribute only 5,000 two-pences. Already there are special water rates, lighting rates and sewerage rates, and a greater measure of equity would
be obtained if it were found possible to give effect to my suggestion.
I would like to draw attention to the proposed machinery for the collection of rates. I think the machinery under this Bill must be abandoned. The question of the basis on which rates are to be collected is a vital one, and it is on that very rock that the existing Ouse Board has split. The Ouse Board was set up as recently as 1920 and it has been confronted with enormous difficulties in regard to the collection of rates. Perhaps I may tell the House how great are those difficulties. Hardly anyone within the jurisdiction of the Ouse Board pays the rate unless he is compelled to do so. No less than 500 summonses are considered every month at the monthly Court. One-third of the ratepayers pay when they are summoned, and most of the rest pay at the Court or when served with distress notices In seven years there have been five rates levied and demand notes have been served for four rates. In the case of the first rate over 6,000 assessments remain unpaid; in the case of the second rate over 18,000; the third over 21,000; and in respect of the fourth over 11,649 assessments are still unpaid. One ratepayer may have many assessments, but each assessment must be separately proved before the Court.
Allusion has been made in the Debate to the desirability of either inserting a penalty Clause or giving some special discount. I hope that when this Bill goes before a Select Committee they will consider the question of giving some remission when rates are promptly paid or else consider the question of inserting some penalty Clause. There are many other points of detail to which attention could be drawn. I feel that it is the general interests of the area affected that such a substantial grant as that proposed, namely, £1,500,000, should be accepted, particularly in view of the fact that the present condition of things is a grave menace to a large industrious agricultural population who are doing their level best to improve the food supply of our country.

Sir REGINALD NEVILLE: I think it is clear from the speeches which have been made in this Debate that that part of the county of Norfolk which I represent ought to bear no share in the payments
which are to be demanded under this Bill. I will point out the reasons why I make that statement. I have looked through the Report of the Commissioners most carefully to find out, if I can, what are the bases on which it is considered right that contributions should be made. Of course, there is, first of all, the contribution that naturally arises if the area comes within the catchment area, and then, of course, there is a benefit. Then the suggestion is made that there ought to be a communal interest in the whole of a particular area like the area of the county of Norfolk. I think that that contribution should be a sort of insurance against a reduction in the rateable value. If ever there was a suggestion which seems to me to be futile or one which can be made on every occasion of exacting contributions from people who have nothing whatever to do with the matter, this is an instance.
If it be a question of sustaining the rateable value of any particular area, then the erection of new buildings in that area not only sustains but increases the rateable value, and if the argument which has been put forward is the one on which this contribution has been based, then we in East Norfolk should not come in because we are sustaining that communal interest. I think the argument which has been put forward is not really one which meets the case. Another argument which has been put forward for this scheme is that it is for the benefit of England especially to increase as far as you can the arable land of England. If there is one patriotic thing with which this House would thoroughly agree, it is to increase the amount of arable land in England. I thoroughly understand that argument, and it is a perfectly good one, but it is one which applies to the whole of England, and one which, if it is to be used and carried out, ought to be thrown upon the whole of the country.
May I point out how my own area is particularly affected? The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) alluded to the position in his own area. I believe that some portion of North Norfolk does actually touch the Ouse drainage area, but my area does not come even within 20 miles of the map as far as I understand this question. Further
than that, there is a bread belt of high land which divides us entirely from this watershed. I possess a piece of land which has been some of the finest corn land in the country for a period of 300 or 400 years. A large proportion of the land in my constituency is below sea level. As a matter of fact, I believe at the Conquest the sea came right in as far as Norwich and a large portion comprising about 50,000 acres was flooded by the sea.
The great flood burst in, as it did in the case of the Zuyder Zee in Holland, about the year 1603, and this not only submerged, but filched away a large proportion of the county, and there are certain parishes remaining at the present day at the bottom of the sea. In consequence of this great flood, which carried away several parishes, and which left, during my lifetime, a church standing on the middle of the sands which used to be half covered at high water, an Act of Parliament was passed in the last year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, under the provisions of which artificial barriers were put up against the sea, and that is a burden which the landowners of Norfolk who were within that particular level have borne without repining and without any help from the Government, from the rates, or from any outside body. The erection of that barrier against the sea—the Marram bank, as it is called, in Norfolk, extending for a distance of eight or nine miles, from Caister to Happisburgh—has enabled a large area of land to be drained. Drainage has been carried out by the local landowners, and, at the present time, some 40,000 acres, which used to be flooded more or less by the sea, have been saved for England at very great expense. The annual expenditure on those 40,000 acres has been something like £20,000, which means about 11s. 2d. per acre on the actual acreage that is so drained. Those acres which we have given to England would now have been under the sea had it not been for the patriotic action of the landowners concerned. That land, some of the best in Norfolk, has cost 11s. an acre.
In addition, we have three rivers, which have at one time or another been arms of the sea. We have the Bure, on which most of the Broads remain, the Broads really being those small parts
of the sea which it is impossible to drain. Then we have the Yare, which runs up to Norwich, and also the Wensum. All of these three rivers are in my constituency, and they also require a great deal of attention, because the banks of those three rivers, especially where they are navigable, as in the case of the Yare and some portions of the Bure and the Wensum, are continually being scoured by such traffic as runs on the rivers. That means that we have a very heavy expense for river walls, camp shedding, and things of that sort. Moreover, Yarmouth is doing what King's Lynn now desires to do, namely, making its harbour better, and has dredged out its harbour to such an extent as to make the scour in our rivers very much heavier than it used to be. We are, therefore, rather badly placed in regard to these matters, and that seems to me to be a very good reason why we should not be concerned in any way in the present scheme. The Minister mentioned that, menaced, as it is, on the one hand by the sea—we have lands below the level of the sea—and on the other hand by the ever-present danger of floods from the higher lands above, this large district is, therefore, obviously exposed to unusual risks of inundation, which has only been prevented by long-continued attention, through the patriotic action of the landowners and the expense which they have incurred. We have also another menace in our county which has not been alluded to. We are subject to the most intense erosion. Erosion is going on on some of our best corn lands, because the best corn lands that we have in my constituency are on the coast. To indicate what the effect of erosion has been on that coast, I may mention that my own great-grandfather's summer-house is now about three-quarters of a mile under the sea. That will show in what a peculiar position East Norfolk is placed, not only in having its land filched away by the sea, but in having to maintain a sea wall, at an expenditure of £20,000 a year, to prevent the sea from coming in, and for draining that land, which is practically given to England. If only this country could manage to multiply its land, say, by 10, so that, instead of having 120,000 square miles, it would have 1,120,000 square miles, I think most
of our difficulties in England would disappear, because we should then be able to feed ourselves.
As we have spent that money, and are continuing to spend it year by year, we think that East Norfolk, certainly, ought not to be within the ambit of this Bill. Let us see how it works out. The adjoining county of Suffolk has had the good fortune, so far as this Bill is concerned, to be divided into two wapentakes, East and West, each having a separate county council, and, although the county of Suffolk is not so large as Norfolk, which I believe is the fourth or fifth county of this country in point of size, only a comparatively small portion of Suffolk is included under this Bill, because the East Wapentake has a separate council. The result, so far as Norfolk is concerned, is to be seen in the Report. It will be seen that the acreage runs into millions. We have 1,318,000 acres which, in some way or another, are connected with this area, while I do not know that Suffolk has so much as 1,000,000 acres—the actual figures, of course, are in the possession of the Ministry of Agriculture—but, luckily, owing, perhaps, to the foresight of our forefathers there, it divided itself in time, so that only a small portion of Suffolk is liable to pay this contribution, while the whole of Norfolk is roped in. It seems to me that these are considerations which differentiate this very picturesque district of Norfolk, which is, as I dare say most Members of this House know, one of the amusement grounds of a large portion of London, some 20,000 or 30,000 people coming there simply for the 200 miles of sailing and river ways; and it does seem that, if any part of the country ought to be excluded from having to pay any contribution at all under this Bill, it should be the county of Norfolk.
The way in which we come in is a rather different matter. The county council is given the power of spreading the rate of 2d., or 6d., or whatever it may be, over the rest of this area, on the ground that we have a communal interest in it, and it seems to me that that is a position which must be regarded as inequitable. An hon. Member on the other side talked about equity; the equity is that East Norfolk ought to be left outside, and I oppose the Bill on
that ground. Everything else is splendid, so far as I am concerned. I love to see the Minister of Agriculture increasing the arable land of England. I think that that is a grand thing. If only it be put on the right shoulders, he could not do a better thing. But poor little East Norfolk has a tithe bigger than almost any other county in England, namely, about 6s. or 7s. per acre, and, if you add a flat rate with regard to our drainage, which comes to about 2s. 9d. per acre, and we are now spending something like £20,000, or 2s. 7d. per acre, that makes about 11s. per acre. The agricultural labourers, naturally, are asking for higher wages, but how can higher wages be possibly paid them when we have planked upon our land something like 11s. per acre for these matters, which I think the right hon. Gentleman whose Amendment we are discussing would agree ought to be put on the shoulders of England at large. I shall oppose this Bill.

Mr. WELLS: I support the opposition of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), for rather different reasons. My hon. Friend is a lowlander, while I live in the high country of Bedfordshire, and we were partly the cause of the defeat of the Order of 1920. We consider that this Bill is not a Measure to meet a sudden emergency or danger; it is the outcome of numerous inquiries that have taken place since 1920. In 1918, when the inquiries were started, what was in view was increasing the acreage of plough land and growing more corn at a time of national necessity. The Bill of 1920 was opposed, though not so strongly as might have been expected. I think that one reason for that was a question that was put in this House by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer), who asked whether those who received no benefit would have to pay. The answer that he received from the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture was this:
Then I have been asked a question in regard to the incidence of rating. The principle is that it must be in proportion to benefits received, and the river has to be divided into sections and areas, and they are rated in proportion to benefits received by the different sections. My hon. Friend put the question, 'Supposing some-
body received no benefit, would he be rated?' The Order makes no change in the law, and only those benefited can be rated, and if any person proves that he is not benefited he will not be rated under the Order."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1920; col. 1949, Vol. 127.]
That was not carried out in the Act of 1920. If it had been carried out, I believe I am right in saying that there would have been no Bill before the House to-day. As it happened, the farmers in the upland areas at once had a grievance; they were called upon to pay, they received no benefit, and, therefore, they refused to pay—in other words, they practised what is known as passive resistance. There was considerable trouble in those areas. In 1924, as the Minister has said, an attempt was made to put the matter right, and, after a long inquiry, there was an offer of £1,500,000, of which I believe two-thirds was to be paid by the area, and the upland areas who received no benefit were to be cut out. I believe that the Ouse Board at that time were not satisfied that the Fen area could stand the extra cost on the rates. They certainly made an alternative offer, asking for a grant of £100,000 and a loan of £100,000 to carry on with the work. I believe that if that had been done even then, we should not have been troubled to-day with this Bill. Evidently, however, the Ministry were not satisfied with that. They set up a small Commission, and, who of course were ready to bring forward a complete scheme for the whole area. The Commission sat in 1925, and brought out a very big scheme, the cost of which, instead of being £1,500,000, was something like £2,500,000, or an increased expenditure in one year of something like £1,000,000. I think the Minister, by this Bill, has achieved what only a short time ago was considered to be an impossibility, that is to say, he has brought the uplanders and the fenmen into the same camp, though not for the salve reason, and we now have the very unusual spectacle of the fenmen and the uplanders fighting this Bill together. We have, and I admit it freely, very conflicting interests. Our interests are in no way identical with those of the fenmen. I have had many arguments with Members from the Fen country in this House with regard to the two areas. But there are included under this Bill now something like 12 counties. There are six counties
which have no interest in the matter at all, and which receive no benefits, but which are to be rated under this Bill. They are Bedford, Bucks, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire and Hertfordshire and Essex. The counties interested in the Ouse question are represented by some 40 Members in this House, and I do not think there are more than one or two who will speak in favour of this Bill among all those 40 Members. I should be very surprised if there are two. At present there has only been one. This 2d. rate is, of course, only the start. All rates, I believe, start in this very small way. You get a very small rate and, as the years go on, it increases. But if we have even a 2d. rate I cannot see how any agriculturist is going to improve his position by a penny. He is not receiving any benefit.
I do not suppose any Member of the House would oppose a Drainage Bill if it were economically sound. We think this Drainage Bill is not economically sound. We think it is very costly, not only to the local areas but also to the nation. In Bedford we have kept our river in order by spending very considerable sums some years ago. We have not asked for Buckinghamshire or Northamptonshire to contribute to keep our river in order. I have heard the argument used that there are so many large towns that increase the burdens on the watercourses. I do not know of any very large towns on the Ouse or in the Ouse area. I suppose Cambridge is the largest. I do not think there are any large industrial towns on the Ouse at all. The Minister may claim that he has the support of the Farmers' Union in some of the counties in the valley of the Ouse who under the old Order were paying a very excessive rate. They are in a very great difficulty. They are between the devil and the sea. I will not go so far as that—it might be misconstrued—but they are between the frying pan and the fire. They have been scorched once and they prefer the frying pan now and paying a very small rate rather than risk being put back on to the 1920 Order and being charged at a very high rate again and having to put their fight through all over again. Of course, it will be recognised that the 1920 Order was a very costly matter in taking proceedings in law.
I should like to say one word on the question of urgency. The point to this is paragraph 129 of the Report. It says:
If the works recommended by us are not carried out, serious inundations will follow, and in the absence of extraordinary effort and a very large expenditure of money, the whole fen area will return to primeval conditions.
I had a letter this morning from the Huntingdonshire County Council, in which they ask that the Bill should be opposed as it is premature to deal with it till the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into land drainage in England and Wales and its administration throughout the country has been submitted. They go further and say:
I am further to point out that this Committee have considerable areas under their jurisdiction, and they are convinced that there is no immediate danger by a postponement of this Bill.
I should like to go further and say I do not think that is a view held by the Ouse Board, who are the responsible authorities for dealing with drainage in the Ouse area. There was a question put before the board the other day in respect of this very matter, and the answer was:
The west banks of the south level have all been strengthened and raised and the rivers deepened and the discharge through Denver sluice much improved. The water in the Little Ouse and Wissey has been lowered and shows, at Wilton Bridge and Stokes Ferry Bridge, a lower dry water surface of two feet. There is a less liability of any flooding than in 1919.
That is very important, because after all in the last three years this authority, who are responsible for the safety of the Ouse, have spent nearly £200,000 in looking after their banks. If any authority should know what the position is I think the Ouse Board should know. They go on to say:
Below Denver sluice the banks of the Ouse have been repaired and maintained, and though there was no immediate danger, some more substantial work would be required on these banks in the future.
My informant tells me:
The general opinion of the members, who know the fen country country well, is that the alarmist views of the Commissioners as expressed in their Report are quite unwarranted and exaggerated. The fen country is well protected by the main barrier bank from any general inundation, whilst any return to primeval conditions is out of the question.
He also says it is the opinion of some of their members that it would be of advantage to still lower the low-water at Denver Sluice so as to improve the drainage above. I think that to a certain extent meets the point of the urgency of this matter. I do not want to deal with expenditure on the Wash. We all know that King John lost a great deal of treasure there and it is possible that we may lose more. It is one of those difficult problems that I do not think are properly realised by Members of the House. I have been all over the Ouse area and to the Wash to see it. You have a 25 foot tide in the Wash. It ebbs for nine hours and flows for three. You have a rise of 25 feet at spring tide in three hours. That is a very difficult problem to deal with and it is a question as to what is the best method of dealing with this rush of water. The sands are quietly coming up, and if it were not for the flood from the upper areas of the Ouse, and the water flowing down the Ouse river, it would be very difficult indeed to keep the outlet clear so that the water could get away at all. The Government have set up this Royal Commission on drainage and I think the Bill prejudges the issue at stake. It sets up an alteration in the method of drainage rating and it rates these counties, irrespective of any benefit received. I note there is agreat deal of opposition and I think the Minister is like a well known Egyptian King and hardens his heart when there is so much opposition.

Sir KENNETH MURCHISON: I want to intervene for a moment or two because this matter concerns very closely a large number of my constituents—a great deal more closely than most of them care about. I agree that the Government, having appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole question of the law concerning land drainage in England and Wales might well have waited until it had reported before bringing in this Bill. The Minister feels that there is urgency in the matter and references have been made to what doubtless is prompting him, namely, the Clause in the Report that if something is not done immediately and if an extraordinary effort and a very large expenditure of money are not made the whole of the fen area will return to primeval conditions. In Huntingdonshire there are about
50,000 acres of fen land and the Committee of the county council most concerned in the matter have unanimously passed a strong resolution urging the postponement of this matter. It is their opinion that there is nothing serious to fear and the Bill might well be postponed for at least another year. References have been made to the alteration in the principles of rating which it involves. It seems to me that the proposals of the Bill involve departing altogether from the old principles that have been observed for more than 300 years and, instead, they will make people liable, especially in the uplands, for paying the rate when they are not getting any benefit from it; and they are not being saved from any danger because, as I believe, no real danger exists. I do not think the Minister realises for a moment the very strong feeling of opposition and resentment which has been invoked in the minds of the uplanders by the Bill and by his desire to push it through at all costs. Because I feel this very strongly I must reluctantly oppose the Bill.

Mr. CHRISTIE: Because the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Sir R. Neville) has made out such a very good, case for his county I do not want the House to think that the rest of Norfolk is in agreement with the proposals of the Bill. My constituency is miles away from the Ouse Valley. It does not drain any water that way and we shall, of course, under the Bill be liable to the payment of a county rate for the Ouse Drainage Board expenses. At a time like, this, when the farmer is making great efforts to avoid the Bankruptcy Court, it seems a wrong thing to put even this small additional burden on his back. None of us like, rates. The only thing that reconciles us to them is the fact that we are going to get some benefit, and perhaps the fact that other people are bearing the, same burden. In South Norfolk we shall undoubtedly get no benefit whatever and, as regards bearing the same burden as other people, when the South Norfolk people meet their Suffolk friends just over the boundary they will find they are not paying anything at all. That will certainly make a great deal of ill feeling. I do not only wish to state the case for South Norfolk. I should like to say something from the point of view of the Norfolk County 'Council and the Drainage Board. I am a member of both
bodies, and the Drainage Committee has given the Bill its very careful consideration.
It is felt that with the improvements which have already been mentioned at Denver Sluice and in the Little Ouse the chance of inundation is very small indeed and there is no case for carrying through this Measure before the Report of the Royal Commission. That recommendation of the drainage committee was brought before the county council and adopted by them and the county council is petitioning against the Bill. The feeling generally of the drainage committee, which consists of gentlemen who were elected on that body for their knowledge of the circumstances and the general conditions of drainage in the county, and many of whom are very familiar with the position of the Ouse river, is that the only possible justification for carrying this Measure through would be the fear of immediate inundation, and of that they say they have no fear whatever. In the circumstances, both as representing these unfortunate farmers who will be called upon to pay a rate to assist farmers who are farming far more fertile land than they are, and also as a loyal member of my county council, I feel I cannot support the Bill.

7.0 p.m.

Commander WILLIAMS: I only want to take tip a very few minutes in referring to this Measure, because, although I am not directly interested in the fight between the Uplanders and Lowlanders, we have heard a very great deal about their grievances, but nothing at all about the unfortunate taxpayer who is called upon to pay £1.250,000. In these days, when we hear that the general taxpayer is very hardly hit, as he is, and when we consider that there are people who are trying to see what can be done to remedy that state of affairs, I think the Government are bound, before calling on the taxpayer to put in this very large sum, to justify the position that, first of all, the people in the locality that are doing the damage are doing their full share, and also that the people in the locality who are going to benefit are doing their full share also.
May I look at the matter from this point of view First of all, there is the Uplander, as we call him, who says he ought not to pay anything, I believe a good many people have held
that point of view. Of course, if I take a brick and throw it through someone's window, it does not matter to me in the least whether that window is mended or not, but in all probability I shall have to pay for the damage. In the same way, if you own or occupy land and you throw the whole of the waste water on to the low-lying districts below you, I think, as you benefit by getting that water away from the upland, you, at any rate, might contribute something towards taking that water directly to the sea. I think from that point of view the Government are absolutely justified in charging the uplands a 2d. rate per acre, provided it is clearly proved that those uplands are actually getting their water thrown on to the lower land. The criticism I shall make is that, considering the taxpayer's interest in this matter, which is undoubtedly small, compared with the damage which the highlands will do to the lowlands. I think, in the circumstances, the highlands get off very very easily, as compared with the taxpayer outside.
Then, again, take the lower land. They have to pay a 6d. rate or three-eighths of the total sum concerned. Under this Bill they are bound more or less to be the people who are incurring the direct benefit. The owners of the land may be saved from having their land destroyed entirely, and the same applies to the farmer and the worker on the land, whose means of living have to be presumed. I do not think it is right or just that the general taxpayer, who will benefit, of course, by preserving this great area, but who will benefit in proportion nothing like the people who actually live on the land, should be called upon to pay 50 per cent. of the whole. The Government are extraordinarily generous if they give as much as that. I think there are many people in that district who might reasonably be called upon to pay more. Although I welcome this scheme as a whole, and believe that Very much ought to be done in the matter of drainage, it is a very dangerous precedent for the Government to lay down that is provided by paying 50 per cent., because, after all, there may be other drainage schemes going on in wealthier or in poorer districts, and if you once lay down a precedent on a colossal scale like this, you are laying it down in such
a way that it will be very difficult to refuse in other places to pay the same towards those districts.
For that reason, although I do not wish in any way to oppose the Bill, or to suggest that it will do anything but good, as far as that part of England is concerned, and will help their difficulties, yet I do think the Government ought to have a very strong case before they come to the general taxpayer and ask him to make this very large contribution towards this scheme. They ought to be quite certain that all the parties interested, or who will take any part in the scheme, are paying their fair share, and they ought to be absolutely certain that ultimately the scheme is going to be a great success, and a success from the financial point of view, in saving and in preserving and increasing ultimately the value of the land in the district, which, of course, in its way, will do something to increase the value of the whole of Great Britain.

Major ALAN McLEAN: This Bill, really, affects four classes of persons, first of all the ratepayers in the lowlands, then the ratepayers in the uplands, next the ratepayers in the counties which have part of their area within the catchment area but who are themselves actually outside that catchment area, and lastly the taxpayer. It is a very remarkable fact that this Bill has been criticised by all four parties. The Minister, in introducing the Bill, said that it was based on the recommendation of the Ouse Drainage Commission, which gave the matter very careful consideration, and made a Report. The Government accepted the Report and this Bill, he said, was framed on it. That, of course, is perfectly accurate, but I do not think it is quite the whole story. If you look closely at the Report you find, first of all, that the reference to the Commission clearly indicated that the matter was then considered as one which affected the Ouse drainage system only. The Commission had not been sitting very long when they came up against the general principles of drainage law, the principles of rating, either in accordance with benefit received or danger averted, and they drew attention to the
fact that, in their opinion, it was necessary to depart to some extent from those principles. When they came to make their specific recommendations about the first of these departures from the general principles and to make recommendations with regard to the 2d. charge on the uplands, they used these words:
Our inquiry has, of course, been confined to the Ouse, and our recommendations can relate only to that area, but we recognise that if the principle we recommend is accepted it may well be extended to the country at large.
To my mind, when the Government got that Report, it was quite clear that the Commission thought if those principles were to be accepted they should be extended to the whole of the country. Therefore, the Government could have done one of two things—either they could have said, "These principles are perfectly sound, and we will apply them to the whole of the country, including the Ouse district," or they should have said, "We are not satisfied about this, and we will appoint a Royal Commission to go into the whole question and see whether these recommendations are, in fact, sound." The Government have adopted neither of these attitudes, but have carried out the recommendations as far as the Ouse is concerned and have not adopted them for the country as a whole. It is that attitude of the Government—a half-way acceptance of the Report—that does place me and many of my colleagues in very great difficulty. We should feel a great deal of difficulty in opposing this scheme, if it had been applied to the whole country, but we do feel that in applying it to this particular district and not to the country, an Government are puting many of us in a very difficult position.
Turning to the recommendations of the Commission, first of all there is this question of the rating of the uplands at 2d. per acre for every acre of land in the county within the upland area. Under the recommendation of the Commission and under the Bill, it is made a charge which the Council can levy either as a general county rate or a special rate only levied in the upland area. The second one is a 6d. rate for every acre in the county within the lowlands. This charge must, under the Bill and under the recommendations of the Commission, be spread
all over the county. The hon. Member for East Norfolk (Sir R. Neville) and the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Christie) have drawn attention to the unfairness of applying that principle in favour of the watershed of the Ouse only, and there are many other counties in the country that have got watersheds, being partly in one and partly in another watershed. It is grossly unfair to make ratepayers in one watershed pay for the drainage of another watershed, when at the same time the Government refuse to give similar support to them. Either this principle of taxing the whole county for the benefit of one watershed ought to apply to all watersheds or none at all.
There is one other departure or modification of the existing Drainage Law to which I wish to draw attention, and that is the question of rating in accordance with the annual valuation basis as against an acreage basis. That is, in the Bill, obligatory on the Ouse Board, and as I understand the Bill is applicable also to the South Level Board. In his remarks I think the Minister said that the South Level Board in future would have the option of rating either in accordance with the acreage basis or the annual valuation basis. That is not my reading of the Bill, and I should be extremely obliged to the Minister if he will make it clear in winding up whether I understood him aright. As I read the Bill, Clause 3 provides that the Ouse Board have got to rate on the annual value basis. Then it is provided by Sub-section (5) of Clause 3, that:—
Subject as hereinafter provided, the foregoing provisions of this Section shall apply with respect to the drainage rates to be levied by the South Level Board as they apply with respect to drainage rates to be levied by the Ouse Board:
As I read that, it means that in future the South Level Board will have to rate on the basis of annual value. Personally, I hope that is so, and I shall be very much obliged to the Minister if he will make it clear whether I am correct or not.
Another alteration to the Drainage Law is that affecting my own county of Norfolk and which has a very serious effect. In Norfolk we have the largest area of upland in any of the counties affected, and we have also the second largest area of lowland. The result is that these 2d. and 6d. rates, respectively, amount together to a rate on the county
of Norfolk of nearly £6,000 a year. If the county council levy these two rates as a general rate all over the county it will amount to a rate of just on 1d. in the £ per annum. If, on the other hand, they levy only the 6d. lowland rate on the county itself the rate on the county will be one halfpenny. The 2d. rate, which will then have to be levied on the upland part of the county only, will vary a good deal in different districts. To take one case only, that of the Swaffham district, it would amount to 5d. in the £.
There is one point to which I should like to refer, and that is the question of the representation of the county on the Ouse Board during the time that these big alterations are going to be carried out, a period of approximately ten years. The Government during that period will put down approximately £1,250,000, and in respect of that grant they will be entitled to six representatives on the Ouse Board. The counties affected will have to pay one-fifth of the amount, and yet they get no representation at all. I hope that point will be dealt with in the Committee stage.
With regard to this new principle of rating the uplands and the lowlands, and rating in accordance with annual value basis as against acreage basis. I, personally, would far prefer to defer any opinion on this new principle until the Royal Commission have reported, and we know whether they apply to the country as a whole. I think, with regard to the rating of the uplands in the Bill, there may be something to be said for it. If you have land in its natural condition, as nature left it, and water falls from that land and drains down on to the lowlands, I think the lowlander has a very poor case in asking the uplander to contribute towards it, but the moment the uplander deals with his land in any way that increases the burden on the lowlander, then, I think, the uplander ought to pay something towards the cost. Whether he does it by means of building towns, increasing the drainage by means of sewers and so on, or whether he does it by draining his agricultural land better and so increasing the flow on to the lowlands, I think there is something to be said for making him pay something towards the cost. I came across a very remarkable instance of it some time ago
in the North of Scotland. Up to the time of the War, we had many of the hills covered with trees, which were of very poor value and which could not really be used for ordinary timber purposes. But the shortage of timber was so great during the War that these hills were very largely stripped of their timber. What has been the result? Previous to the cutting down of the timber, the farms which were in the hollows between these hills were dry farms, but the result of cutting down these trees has been to make the lowlands very wet indeed, and the farmers and landowners have been put to great expense in having to drain their land. That shows that the moment the uplander begins to deal with his land in any way to his own advantage, and throws a burden on his neighbour, there is a case for making him pay a proportion of the cost.
There are two reasons given for proceeding with this Bill now, and not waiting for the Report of the Royal Commission. The first is, that the suspensory Order, which was first introduced in 1925 and expired on the 31st December last year, is being continued until the 31st December this year, when it will expire unless something is done. To my mind, it would be quite sufficient, as far as that is concerned, to bring in another Bill extending the suspension period for another year, or, at any rate, until the Royal Commission has reported. The other reason given is that there is the danger of a flood. It is not quite clear whether the flood is anticipated as a result of the damage to the outflow of the sea or to the damage to the banks, but this question of the danger of flooding is not a new question. Anybody who has perused the reports of engineers for a long time past knows that this danger has been present to the minds of everybody who has ever reported on the Ouse district. In 1792 it was reported that the damage to the outfall was a progressive one, and it was reported again in 1884 and in 1917. There has been a number of reports calling attention to the danger that sooner or later they would have a flood. I dare say they were perfectly correct, and I am not prepared to dispute the opinion, but there is nothing I can see in the reports, or in the facts, as far as they have been
brought to my attention by my constituents, to show that there is any real imminent danger of flood.
I know that the Commission at the outset of their Report called attention to this risk, as they had a perfect right to do, but, bearing in mind the history of this matter and the report of the danger of disaster, I think the Government would undergo no great risk if they postponed the introduction of this Bill until the Royal Commission have reported. I believe the Government could quite well have introduced a Bill suspending the Order to which I have referred for another period of a year. They might also have gone a little further, possibly, and introduced a Clause setting up a South Level Board, which everyone wants. I feel that in proceeding with this scheme at a time when a Royal Commission is considering the question of land drainage generally, the Government are proceeding on a wrong line, and on a line which will produce great hardship upon people living in counties partly under one watershed and partly under another. For these reasons I regret very much that I must oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I want to say a few words on the subject of this Bill from, perhaps, two rather different aspects. The point of a large Government expenditure has already been dealt with by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay (Commander Williams), who is entirely outside the particular area. I am interested in it, not only because a part of the county in which I live, Hertfordshire, extraordinary as it may seem, is to be dragged in to make a contribution to this scheme, but because I take a very deep personal interest in the question of Ouse drainage. I spent the first years of my life on the banks of the Ouse, and I have known thoroughly well the lowlands and highlands, the course of the Ouse and its tributaries, during the whole of my life. I think the Government and the Commission which they set up to inquire into this matter are to be congratulated sincerely upon having gone into the matter so thoroughly and upon obtaining, on the whole, such a thoroughly good report.
Next comes the question—if I may deal, for one moment, with this from what I may call the national point of view—whether this heavy Government expendi-
ture is justified at the present moment. That position is intensified by the fact that the Government are apparently contemplating—and, I think, rightly and properly—the necessity of considering what is to be done with regard to land drainage and river drainage generally throughout the whole country. That means this: If they are going to be consistent at all, as soon as the Royal Commission has reported, they are going to deal in some more or less analogous way with the whole country, and that is going to be an enormous expense. It may be a justifiable expense, but even when you get an expense which is justified, it is no use incurring it in such a way as to get yourselves into the Bankruptcy Court. It is a very serious question, really, for this House to consider whether they are going to pledge the country to this enormous outlay at the present time, or whether they are going to give the country a bit of a chance to recover and get into a sounder financial position before they embark upon this particular expenditure, however excellent it may be.
Let me take the question of the expenditure with regard to the Ouse drainage area alone. I have said—and I mean it most truly—that I think the Report of the Commission is a very excellent one, but even the members of the Commission themselves would admit that they may be wrong. These enormous and expensive works on the Wash and at the mouth of the river are matters upon which engineers differ, and differ honestly. The fact that there is a difference between great authorities is not a reason why you should not go on with the work, but it is a reason for waiting until you are quite sure that if the scheme does not turn out successfully you will be in a position to provide the further money that is necessary to prevent what you have already expended from being lost. On the face of it, unless there is some particularly good reason to the contrary—and with that I will deal in a moment—I think I may put it as high as this: the only sane thing to do, when you have got this Ouse question before you and the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the position of the whole country, is to wait until you get the Report of that Royal Commission and deal with the country as a whole. Let me point out, that if you do not do that, you are bound to land yourselves into
trouble in the end, because it may be taken as a certainty that whatever may be the Report of the Royal Commission, and even if they take the Ouse drainage scheme embodied in this Bill as a kind of precedent and attempt to follow it as closely as they can, it is perfectly certain they cannot fit this scheme in as it stands to any scheme which will cover the whole country. That means, therefore, that you are going to have uncertainty as to what will happen when you get the rest of the country dealt with. You are going to have a necessary change in the whole financial plan as soon as you proceed to deal with the rest of the country, and, in the meantime, everybody is thinking he is going to be better off some day and wishing you will wait until you get the whole scheme ready.
Let me examine the reasons which the Government gave for setting up this Royal Commission to inquire into the position throughout the whole country and proceeding at the same time with the particular detailed scheme for practically the biggest river area in the country, with the exception of the Thames. First of all, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture bases it upon the very serious warning, I think he called it, which is contained in this Report. It is perfectly true that this Report does use very serious words, and the danger is of a nature which everybody who knows anything about the Ouse Valley has known for a great many years. But if you read this Report with care, you will see that in not a single one of the many passages which refer to this danger do the Commission say that it is an immediate danger, or a danger which has got to be dealt with at once.

Mr. GUINNESS: Imminent danger.

Mr. HERBERT: The word "imminent" is used, I agree once. That, I think, is in paragraph 129.

Mr. GUINNESS: No, it is at the beginning.

Mr. HERBERT: No, they do not repeat it afterwards. It is in the earlier part of it—first of all in paragraph 5:
any breach of the banks of these channels must result in a widespread inundation of the lower lands.…
Menaced on the one hand by the sea, and on the other by the ever-present danger of floods from the higher lands above, this large district is obviously"—
We get into rather high-flown language, and I am consequently a little inclined to mistrust some of the words in that passage:
exposed to unusual risks of inundation which long-continued neglect has now made imminent.
That is not, on the whole, a bad text for what I was going to say about the immediateness or the urgency of this particular Bill. As I have already said, I was born and brought up on the banks of the River Ouse, and I have worked and played on the fen-lands and on the heavier lands on the borders of the Fens. I have been there in floodtime. I have seen serious breaks, and I know the danger well. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Wells), and another hon. Member, said that the condition was less dangerous now than it was in the year 1919. It was far less dangerous in the year 1919 than it was in the year 1910. It was far less dangerous in the year 1910 than it was away back in the years from 1880 to 1890. Those were the days when there was real danger. Those were the days when there were constant small floods. But what happened? The patching-up of the banks prevented a greater disaster, and, with all respect to great engineers, I believe it to be the case—and, indeed, I doubt whether they would deny it—that there is no real serious risk of any flood of any magnitude which would destroy any of this valuable land within the next five or 10 years. For the banks and dykes—a dyke, as Members know, means a bank—can be carefully watched, and kept up and patched up. That is a matter which can be dealt with perfectly simply and easily at no very great expense. But the Minister says that it is urgent, because if you wait until the end of the year without getting this Bill through, the suspensory order dealing with the present deadlock comes to an end. I think he used the words in his opening speech that the people concerned in those parts would be shouldering the entire burden and refusing the Government grant which is now offered to them. You can put it in that way from a rhetorical point of view; but surely the Minister does not suggest that it
is past the wit of himself or the Government to devise some other means of continuing that suspensory order and some method of doing what is necessary for this mere matter of bank-watching and patching in order to let this enormous and expensive scheme wait over until you deal with the country as a whole.
I venture to suggest very strongly, not only to Members interested in that particular district, but Members in all parts of the House who are interested in the financial condition of the country at the present time, that they support us in our endeavour to get this huge scheme postponed, and some satisfactory solution of the danger as far as it is immediate provided in the meantime, until we can get a scheme for the whole country which will prevent these inequalities and unfairnesses to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Norfolk (Sir R. Neville) has referred, and which will enable Parliament and the country to judge what is the way in which this question can be fairly dealt with. More important still, perhaps, is the question as to how far or how much of it it is absolutely necessary to deal with at once, and how much of it can be put off until such time as this extra burden on the country's finances will not be calculated to hinder and prevent that restoration of prosperity for which it is the business of all of us to work.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: I rise with some considerable feeling of nervousness and fear because I, unlike the other Members who have spoken, am one of those unfortunate people who happen to be a landowner in the district. I say "unfortunately," but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) has made me feel that I am likely to be rather a grasping individual, because he says I am going, as the owner of land, to receive a subsidy which I do not deserve. I had no knowledge until I came into this House tonight that I was going to be particularly enriched by this Bill. The only thing I can say is that as I have some financial interest in the Bill, I do not propose to vote on the Bill in the division lobby. The land is in the middle level area, the area coloured green on the map. That area is the lowest area in the Fen Valley, and it is an area
which it is supposed will be benefited by the subsidy or under the provisions of this Bill. It may have occurred to many Members of the House that it was a rather astonishing thing that the middle level Commissioners for whom I speak, and of whom I am one and whose area is to be benefited, should have objected to the Bill. I want to assure the Minister and the House that we do not disagree with the principle of the Bill. I, and I think they, accept the principles of the Bill. The only thing to which we can object are some of the Clauses. We recognise we are going to be bettered and that the State is going to help us. It would not be right or just that we should look a gift horse in the mouth, but this gift horse we are going to receive may cost more to feed than the value of the work it does if, having received it, we cannot get rid of it at any time.
This Bill has been made necessary because of the Order of 1926 setting up the Ouse Drainage Board. I think many of us would like to go back to the period before 1926. When the Board was set up in 1920 it took over certain obligations with regard to the repairing of banks and ditches carried out by other bodies. Those bodies are now dissolved, and so the present Ouse Board cannot be dissolved unless it be replaced by some other Board. This Bill does place a. new Board in the place of the old Ouse Board. We in the lowland area are accustomed to efficient drainage, and we did have, and have, a considerable feeling of dissatisfaction against the old Ouse Drainage Board with regard to its extravagance and not very efficient work, and we want, as soon as possible, the old Board replaced by the new. I have listened to-night to many of the objections against the Bill and nearly all of them are entirely financial. They come, in the first place, from Members representing the upland areas. What these Members say is this: "We have always had from time immemorial the right to send our water down. It is immaterial what happens to it when it comes through the Fen lands." There is some reason in that argument, but, as the Minister says, and as I say, there is reason in their argument as long as the water from the upland area comes naturally down. When they have artificial means to accelerate the rate of
water down these rivers, then I think it is only fair, equitable and just that they should provide something because of the waters above which they so rapidly send down to us. We are able to keep up with the natural course of water coming down in the natural manner but not when it is accelerated. There is another point. The great part of the Bill is to cleanse out the mouth of the Ouse, which is rapidly silting-up. The reason of this silting-up is to a great extent due to the enormous quantity of weeds brought down. These weeds settle down in the Wash and assemble. They are upland, weeds brought down to the mouth of the Wash, and I think we are justified in saying that these upland owners and occupiers of land should pay something for removing their debris from the mouth of the Wash.

Mr. D. HERBERT: This Bill does not recognise that. It is only the waterworks areas which ought to pay, not the ordinary areas.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: In answer to that, I would suggest that the acceleration of water is due not only to urban areas and waterworks, but to agricultural operations, including drainage and doing up ditches. It was only last year that we passed through the House a Drainage Bill the object of which was to facilitate drainage in certain areas, and in that Bill you can yourselves constitute the county council as a drainage board, and send that water down, accelerate the amount of water and increase the quantity with which we have to deal in the lower area. I think the second objection by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite—and it is an objection held by many financial men in the House—is a purely financial one, as to whether the State should contribute. I want, on behalf of the lowland area, and I do so very sincerely, to thank the Minister and the Government for that contribution. I want to say to the economists that we have some justification for assistance. To the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) and other Members I would say that if we had a country mostly under sea level like Holland, would it be the duty of the Government to assist the country if the country were in danger of being flooded? The reply would be, "Undoubtedly." If I said to these economists, "Half of your country is in fear of inundation;
will you not help?" they would say, "We will help." Now one half of a county is in fear of flood. Will or will you not make me a similar reply?
There is a precedent for such assistance. The Minister referred to the fact that the Fen drainage had started in Henry VIII's time and continued through Queen Elizabeth's time, but the State undertook the drainage of the Fens in the Roman times. The Romans were at that time the State. There are, in the Fen country, banks 150 miles long which were constructed by the Romans. There is a dyke surrounding the Fen country which was also constructed by the Romans, and I do think the assistance by the State for which we are asking is justified in this case. Hon. Members have heard objections from the other side of the House as to why they should not pay. We all agree that something should be done. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Wells) and the Noble Lord, the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Fermoy), and I went out at low tide, about three weeks ago, on the third largest river in the country, and we grounded although drawing only two and a-half feet of water. This third largest river in England has not more than two feet of water at its mouth in the Wash, and, from that, I think everybody will come to the conclusion that something should be done. We are not agreed as to whether there is an immediate and urgent necessity, but we are all agreed that, if something is done, the other fellow should foot the bill. In the lowlands, we do not want to pay that bill any more than the uplands, but, in the lowland country, we do recognise that this Bill is going through and that we shall have to pay something.
On behalf of the lowlanders, I am going to make an appeal to the Minister, on Section 3, Sub-section (4), which deals with rating. We, in the lowlands, are prepared to pay something, but we do not want to have an unlimited liability hanging over our heads under this Bill. At present the lowlanders, particularly in the middle level, pay 4s. 6d. to the middle level Commissioners. They pay an internal rate, for actually lifting the water by power, from 3s. to 10s. All together we may be paying from 10s. to 15s. an acre in drainage rates. We are an arable
country, and the Minister does not want me to remind him that there is, and has been, considerable distress in arable agriculture. We do not want to be burdened still further with an unlimited liability. I am going to ask him if it is not possible, during the Committee stage, to limit the liability of the lowland country. I suggest to him the figure that is in the Report of the Commission—the figure of a total charge on the lowland country not exceeding 2s. 6d. an acre. We are in favour of a tax on an agreed basis, in preference to a tax on assessment. As the Minister knows, the middle level has to protect itself from the flood waters coming down, both in the Ouse and the Nene. We have, in the middle level, two banks to maintain—the North barrier bank on the Ouse, and the South barrier bank on the Nene. Under this Bill, the North barrier bank on the Ouse is going to be taken over by the Ouse Board. The existence of that bank is vital to the middle level area, and I am going to ask the Minister to allow the middle level still to have the control and the repair of that bank which is so vital to their interest, the cost of which might be recovered by the middle level and should be recovered from the Ouse Drainage Board. There are many other points on the various Clauses of the Bill, but, as the Minister has undertaken that there will be a Committee stage in this House, it is not necessary for me to refer to them further. I make this final appeal to him, on behalf of the lowland country, to treat us, with regard to the financial provisions, as lightly as he possibly can.

Mr. GUINNESS: Although the last part of the Debate dealt with the details of this Bill, I must remind the House that the issue before it, on the, Amendment, is whether or not we should make public ownership a condition of any assistance to drainage schemes from public funds. I hope my hon. Friends behind me, who have expressed their intention of voting against this Bill, will study the terms of the Amendment which has been moved and consider whether they can possibly commit themselves to the opinion which it contains. Before I come to details of criticism from those who represent the Ouse district, I had better say a word about the political argument which was originally advanced from the opposite side of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk Northern (Mr. Buxton), who was Minister of Agriculture in the last Government, explained his action in offering a grant to the Ouse area without any nationalisation on two grounds. His first ground was that the grant was not so much in proportion as our grant, and that it was only one-third as a free gift and two-thirds as a loan. I have consulted my financial advisers, and am told that the £1,000,000 lent on the terms then proposed was exactly the equivalent of a quarter of a million pounds down, and that, therefore, the Labour Government's proposal was exactly equivalent in its proportions to the proposal that we make to-day. My right hon. Friend suggested that they were justified in making this concession to the Ouse area because they felt that the matter was urgent. They knew they could not get nationalisation, and they had to do something. They must surely know that nationalisation is much more impossible to-day than it was then, and the ground of urgency is greater than it was then. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman felt that it was not right to wait in 1924, he must be convinced that there is an urgent case for action at the present time.
The area, without public assistance, cannot possibly bear the burden of the works which are held to be necessary. The Commission give figures on page 35 of what the burden would work out at, if no State aid is to be given. You find figures which show that agriculture, under those conditions, would become absolutely impossible. The Thetford district would have to find 26s. 2d. an acre. In the Conington drainage district it would be 27s. 7d. an acre. In the Woodwalton district it would be 27s. 11d. an acre, and in two more districts 29s. 7d. an acre. The Commission report that they could not contemplate imposing on this heavily rated area a charge in respect of the tidal river and works equivalent to a rate of 6s. 10d., and, unless some substantial assistance is forthcoming from other sources, the extensive works which are necessary could not be undertaken. This Government assistance is the only way of enabling these precautions against flooding to be taken, and, by that Government assistance, the burden thrown on
the ratepayer for this new scheme is reduced from 6s. 10d. an acre to 2s. 6d.
8.0 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why it was that we propose to set up the South Level Board, and why we did not let the new Ouse Board take over responsibility for the internal arrangements of the South Level. We have consulted the general opinion of the district, and we have taken the opinion of the Commission that it is convenient to limit the responsibility of the new Ouse Board to the main channel. The drainage of the Cam, the little Ouse, and the Lark are small and local concerns. There is no reason why and no suggestion that the uplanders should ask the Government to contribute to these purposes, and it is therefore administratively better that a separate body and separate accounts should be charged with that local undertaking. Several Members asked why there was not more representation to some of the upland areas. If we gave representation to everybody, it would make the board of undue size. The present board numbers 42, and the House will remember, if they have read the Report of the Commission, that the proceedings were found to be cumbersome, and a great deal of trouble resulted. An even stronger reason is that the uplanders are really not concerned as to how their contributions are spent. Some of the upland witnesses said they did not mind in the least what happened, and, as they are not being rated because of any alleged benefit, but merely to compensate the lowlands for a charge which the upland water imposes upon them, they are not concerned in any way how the lowlands choose to spend this money which is available to defend themselves against the danger of flooding. As the danger is in the lowlands, it is for the lowlands to make their own provision against that danger; and the claim against the uplands is dealt with by the upland contribution, and does not in any way necessitate the uplands being represented. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Dean), and, I think, other hon. Members, raised the question of the incidence of the county charges, and I think all the hon. Members for Norfolk who spoke took up practically that same point. That is, I admit, a matter which has excited a good deal of controversy and on which
there is a good deal to be said on both sides, but I would suggest that it really is the matter for the Select Committee rather than for this House. I would say the same about the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member from the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) about the penalty Clause for the collection of rates. I know there is a good deal of support for that suggestion. It has been pressed upon me by a deputation from his area. There, again, I think it is essentially a matter which is suitable for the Select Committee and it would be impossible, and, indeed, improper, for any speaker on behalf of the Government to prejudge action on a subject of that kind.
The main argument of my hon. Friend and those who followed him was that we ought to wait for the Report of the Royal Commission. I think that he forgets that this Royal Commission has been set up with a definite term of reference to consider drainage law and administration, and not to consider drainage works. That Commission is not the kind of body that can usefully go into the details of this engineering problem. I do not think there is any ground whatever to ask that body to retry the issue which was so thoroughly explored by the special expert Committee.

Sir H. LUCAS-TOOTH: Would it not be possible to defer that part of the Bill?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think so, because the part of the Bill which deals with the works is the part of the Bill which imposes the necessity for expenditure, and you clearly cannot expect the public to put down a large sum of money blindly not knowing when in future the locality will be induced to shoulder its share of the burden. They certainly have had very little encouragement from the locality to think that any proposal would be possible in the earlier years if it means that they are to contribute. It would be impossible for any Government to bring forward a scheme of legislation which gave money to the Ouse district to spend on these urgently required works and to leave over until some indefinite period the question of what contribution, if any, the area itself should make.
The point which I was making on this Royal Commission is that we cannot possibly expect a detailed report from them
of the character necessary for this kind of very technical Bill to deal with the Ouse area, seeing that they have got to deal with the great problem of the country as a whole. If we were to put upon them this additional question, it would be out of the question for them to report in time for legislation in this Parliament. If we reject the case for urgency, if we say that we can wait, that the Ouse is to be considered with the rest of the country, that it is indistinguishable from the rest of the country, that is an argument we have heard not only from the Lowlands but from all the speakers, and if that is accepted then the whole case for special treatment goes by the board. If the Lowlands are going to wait for this general system, they will get a general system, in all probability, without any Government grant. I can assure them that no Government ever could contemplate a grant as part of a general scheme for the whole country with anything like the same generosity that is now proposed for this area. There never was any contemplation on the part of the Government or the Treasury, when they set up this Royal Commission, of applying the generous treatment with which we have met the case for the Ouse, on the ground that that was an unique area offering unprecedented problems, to the country as a whole.
If the representatives of the Ouse area succeed in postponing this Bill, and get the Ouse treated as a part of the new system for the whole country, one thing is absolutely certain, and that is that they will succeed in imposing an enormously heavier burden upon those whom they represent. I hope they will notice, and I hope they will bring to the knowledge of those whom they represent, and who, I know, have been pressing them to oppose this Bill, the arguments of opponents like my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert), who says that 50 per cent. is much too much and that we ought to wait and not give this area anything like what we are giving. What is going to happen if my hon. Friend who represents the Lowlands succeeds in defeating this Bill? He will bring about a far worse impasse to his constituents than that in which they now find themselves. I think it was the hon. Member for Watford who suggested that we should extend the present Provisional
Order. That in this Session would be absolutely impossible. There was a great deal of opposition to the exclusion of the 120,000 acres at the 1924 inquiry, and I believe that if we were to bring forward a Provisional Order Bill to-day—

Mr. D. HERBERT: It was a Suspensory Order

Mr. GUINNESS: It was a Suspensory Order, and it has taken out the 120,000 acres. It was strongly resisted and if that system was to be continued, and if the lowlands were to have the prospect of having to bear the whale burden, I should be surprised if you did not find a great deal of opposition developing. But, apart from that, I do not think it is possible in this Session to comply with the necessary Standing Order procedure in such a way as to enable a Bill to be passed. The rejection of this Bill would therefore mean that Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire and Suffolk would find that those areas which, as a result of the strongest opposition, have got exemption, would come back into the rating not on the new and Treasury aided basis but on that in the 1920 Order. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. Wells) talks about the frying pan and the fire. I hope he will not jump from the one into the other because his area is affected to some extent. I can assure him that it is out of the question for us to find any Parliamentary methods of extending the Suspensory Order which comes to an end with this Bill.

Mr. WELLS: Could not the Suspensory Order be extended?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is the Suspensory Order passed in 1925. I am not dealing with the merits of the Act of 1920. Whatever those merits be, the Suspensory Order still lapses if this Bill is rejected. I am not setting myself up against the opinion of hon. Members behind me, who may have a much greater knowledge of the area than I claim to possess, and who say that in their opinion there is no danger. I do not give my opinion, but I am advised by engineers and by the opinion of the expert Committee and we do consider it imperative—I do not say that this Bill should be dealt with this month or this year—that this issue should be settled in this Parliament. If we were
to wait for the Report of the Royal Commission I say quite definitely that it would be absolutely impassible that this question could be settled in this Parliament. That means that the danger would necessarily go on for an indefinite period. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends behind me will not attach excessive importance to the small details which naturally cause a great deal of anxiety among their constituents, but that they will now give me a Second Reading of this Bill as the only settlement which anybody has been able to bring forward for a problem where expert opinion has given us very strong assurances that further delay would be dangerous.

Sir D. NEWTON: There is just one point upon which the right hon. Gentleman has not touched and upon which I would like information. Can he see his way to give favourable consideration to the proposal for the collection of the 2d. rate on the uplands on a parochial acreage basis, instead of on the basis of assessable value for county rate purposes?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have no views on that matter at all. Quite frankly, we have not attempted to depart from the recommendations of the Commission, except in those cases where we could do so with general agreement. Certain deputations have said, since the Commission reported, that they have come together and have agreed to make small modifications. They do not amount to much. We have made those modifications. Otherwise, where there was any dispute, we have left the details of the Bill as recommended by the Commission. The Select Committee will undoubtedly hear arguments as to whether that 2d. rate should definitely be a charge on the area, or whether the discretion should be left, as suggested by the Commission, to the county council to charge on the acre or the whole area. Personally, I have no strong views either way about it, and I think it is essentially a matter upon which the Select Committee ought to come to a decision, after having heard evidence.

Mr. LOOKER: I only want to say a few words about the possible effect of Clause 4 on my particular constituency. The situation of that constituency is such that it affords a particularly outstanding
example of the possible far-reaching con sequences of this Clause. Like the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert), I was brought up on the banks of this river, and I have been familiar with it throughout the whole of its lower course from my childhood's days. But it is not for that reason that I am opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. Under this Bill a proportion of the uplands of the watershed of the Ouse are liable to a rate of 2d. an acre as a contribution in respect of the works to be carried out under this Bill. That rate is made at the discretion of the county council, being charged upon the particular area within the watershed or spread over the whole of the county. My constituency lies in a long corridor along the banks of the lower Thames, and if the county council decides to spread this rate through the whole county the effect will be that the long corridor along the lower Thames, not having the least connection with the Ouse or its drainage works, will contribute to the works and the drainage scheme relating to an entirely different river. We occupy a position in which, one day or other, we shall have a drainage scheme of our own. To incorporate in one scheme a principle of this far-reaching nature, that those who have a low-lying position on the banks of one river should contribute to the drainage scheme of another, is to go further than any legislature has ever attempted to go.

One of the demands made upon my right hon. Friend is that this Bill should be postponed until the Royal Commission has reported. His answer to that was that the Royal Commission was not concerned with works, but was concerned with drainage law. Surely, there cannot be a greater or more important principle in drainage law than the principle which is incorporated in Clause 4, which makes the owners of land in one watershed pay for the drainage scheme in another. That principle ought not to be embodied in a Bill of this description. It ought not to be embodied in a Bill for one particular watershed. If there is any justification for that principle ever to be embodied in a Bill, it should only he as a national principle, adopted throughout the whole country, on the simple principle of mutual benefits, whereby certain areas which derive no benefit contribute to something for those who do derive benefit because, in return, the areas which derive the benefit contribute to something under which the area first referred to derives benefit. The particular principle embodied in this Bill is so far-reaching and of so novel and startling a nature that it ought not to be incorporated in a Bill of this description. For that reason, I intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes. 143; Noes, 85.

Division No. 183.]
AYES.
[8. 20p. m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Clarry, Reginald George
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Clayton, G. C.
Fielden, E. B.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ford, Sir P. J.


Ashley, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Atkinson, C.
Cope, Major William
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Couper, J. B.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Gower, Sir Robert


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Grace, John


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Grotrian, H. Brent


Blundell, F. N.
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Guinness. Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hall, Capt. W. D' A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hammersley, S. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hanbury, C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harland, A.


Buchan, John
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Dixey, A. C.
Hartington, Marquess of


Burman, J. B.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Hawke, John Anthony


Campbell, E. T.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Ellis, R. G.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)


Chapman, Sir S.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Hills, Major John Waller
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Hilton, Cecil
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Oakley, T.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Jephcott, A. R.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Perring, Sir William George
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tinne, J. A.


Lamb, J. Q.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Loder, J. de V.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Watts, Dr. T.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Radford, E A.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. K.


Macintyre, Ian
Raine, Sir Walter
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Williams, Herbert G.(Reading)


Mc Neill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y,Ch'ts'y)
Withers, John James


Macquisten, F. A.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Womersley, W. J.


Malone, Major P. B.
Rye, F. G.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Margesson, Captain D.
Salmon, Major I.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Merriman, F. B.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sandeman, N. Stewart



Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Penny.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Ammon, Charles George
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, Walter
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barnes, A.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Batey, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Broad, F. A.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Snell, Harry


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lee, F.
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Looker, Herbert William
Stewart, J. (St Rollox)


Christie, J. A.
Lowth, T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
McLean, Major A.
Thorne, W. (West Ham Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Maxton, James
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Tinker, John Joseph


Duncan, C.
Morris, R. H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dunnico, H.
Mosley, Oswald
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Gardner, J. P.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
Naylor, T. E.
Wells, S. R.


Greenall, T.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wilson, R. J.(Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Windsor, Walter


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Palin, John Henry
Wise, Sir Fredric


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.



Hardie, George D.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Rice, Sir Frederick
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Whiteley.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A.(Burnley)
Ritson, J.

Mr. GUINNESS: I have now to move, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I must point out that those are not the words on the Order Paper.

Mr. GUINNESS: I beg to move,
That it is expedient that the Ouse Drainage Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I want to ask one question. None of us desire, of course, to oppose this proposal, but the Minister of Agriculture, in his reply, spoke about the necessity of getting this Bill through this Parliament. It would relieve some of us if we were to be informed that the Government did not regard it as absolutely
necessary to get it through this Session. It wants a great deal of consideration, and we are rather under the impression that, if it is to be reported on by a Select Committee, then that is usually the foundation for a new Bill, in more or less an agreed form, to be introduced in a subsequent Session.

Mr GUINNESS: My hon. Friend does not, apparently, understand the procedure when a hybrid Bill of this kind, in order to avoid unnecessary expenditure on the part of the promoters and opponents, is committed to a Committee of both Houses. This is the course we are pursuing in this case, with every intention of getting the Bill, not before the Summer Adjournment, but before the end of the current Session.

Sir H. LUCAS-TOOTH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the proceedings before the Joint Committee will be available for Members of the House?

Mr. GUINNESS: I will consider that matter.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. Deputy-Speaker stated that he thought the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and, accordingly, he called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision, successively, to rise in their places; and he declared the Ayes had it, five Members only who challenged his derision having stood up.

Resolved,
That it is expedient that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — OUSE DRAINAGE [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question put,
That, for the purpose of any Act, of the present Session to make provision for the better drainage of the area drained by the River Ouse and its tributaries and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—

(1) a contribution towards the expenses to be incurred by the Ouse Drainage Board in respect of certain works and of a certain matter specified in the said Act, up to an amount net exceeding one-half of those expenses;
(2) a sum of four thousand five hundred pounds to the Company of Proprietors of the Norfolk Estuary in consideration of the surrender to His Majesty in right of his Crown of certain lands now vested in the Company."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—(Mr. Guinness.)

The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 63.

Division No. 184.]
AYES.
[8. 34 p. m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Dixey, A. C.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Macintyre, Ian


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Mc Lean, Major A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Ellis, R. G
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Atkinson, C.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macquisten, F. A.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fielden, E. B.
Malone, Major P. B.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Finburgh, S.
Margesson, Captain D.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Merriman, F. B.


Betterton, Henry B.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M


Blundell, F. N.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gower, Sir Robert
Nelson, Sir Frank


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Grace, John
Neville. Sir Reginald J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Grotrian, H. Brent
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Oakley, T.


Buchan, John
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon Hugh


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hammersley, S. S.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Burman, J. B.
Hanbury, C.
Penny, Frederick George


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harland, A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Campbell, E. T.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Perring, Sir William George


Chapman, Sir S.
Hawke, John Anthony
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Christie, J. A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Clarry, Reginald George
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Pownail, Sir Assheton


Clayton, G. C.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Radford, E. A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hills, Major John Walter
Raine, Sir Walter


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hilton, Cecil
Ramsden, E.


Couper, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Crook, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hurst, Gerald B
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rye, F. G.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Jephcott, A. R.
Salmon, Major I.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lamb, J. Q.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Loder, J. de V.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Dawson, Sir Philip
Looker, Herbert William
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Withers, John James


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Womersley, W. J.


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Tasker, R. Inigo.
Watts, Dr. T.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wells, S. R.



Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


Tinne, J. A.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Major Cope.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardle, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barnes, A. 
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bondfield, Margaret
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lansbury, George
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Wellock, Wilfred


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W.


Dunnico, H.
Mosley, Oswald
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Naylor, T. E
Windsor, Walter


Gardner, J. P.
Palin, John Henry
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gillett, George M
Potts, John S.



Greenall, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ritson, J.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. B. Smith.


Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Resolution to the House."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny were appointed as fellers for the Ayes; but, there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, the CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — CROWN LANDS (No. 2) (RECOMMITTED) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Incorporation of Commissioners of Crown Lands).

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to move, in Page 1, line 8, after the word "lands," to insert the words "who shall be three in number and be appointed by the Treasury."
I do not wish to disturb the harmony which has characterised the Debate to-day, and I hope the expedition that has been shown in dealing with the previous Measure will be displayed on this Bill also. This is a Measure to improve the machinery by which the Crown lands
of this country are controlled and directed. An annual revenue of something like £1,500,000 and a considerable capital value are involved, and it is of general interest that this public property should be administered in the most efficient way and in the best interests of the whole community. An investigation of the control of these Crown lands indicates to me that there is something careless and slipshod about the way in which the higher direction of this important public work is carried on. I am not suggesting that the officials responsible for the sale and purchase of the lands, and for their general administration, have been anything but efficient public servants; but it has been difficult to ascertain who, in fact, is responsible for the higher policy in regard to the Crown lands. Clause 1 says:
The persons for the time being holding office as Commissioners of Crown Lands shall by that name be a body corporate for all purposes.
I have done my best to find out who these Commissioners are. We are making them a body corporate, we are giving them an official seal, and giving them power under that seal to dispose of public property amounting to millions of pounds, but there is no arrangement for the appointment of these Commissioners, neither in this Act nor any other Act. When I raised the matter in the Select Commit-
tee I found that at one time there had been three Commissioners. I have never yet discovered how those three came to be appointed, nor how there came to be three. When one of them died no attempt was made to fill his place. On inquiring who were the two remaining Commissioners, I found that one is the Minister of Agriculture, ex officio, and the other the permanent civil servant at the head of the particular Department doing the work. To describe these two men as Commissioners is a gross misuse of the term. A commissioner, if the term has any meaning at all, is something other than a permanent civil servant, and something other than the political head of a Government Department. He is a person independent of the ordinary discipline of a Civil Service Department. He is a man of independent status. He is independent, also, of the votes of the electorate. If we are going to have Commissioners let us have Commissioners. Do not let us have what we have got in fact, the Commissioners of Crown lands merely a Department of the Board of Agriculture's work, about which the President of the Board of Agriculture knows absolutely nothing and cares less. He is not here to-night, and he was not present when the Second Reading was taken.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): Yes, he was.

Mr. MAXTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's recollection is better than mine, and I am not proposing to dispute his statement.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the hon. Member is referring to the Minister of Agriculture, he was present, because he moved the Second Reading.

Mr. MAXTON: Yes, I remember now. What was wrong with my recollection was this—when any point was raised which involved a little knowledge of the Bill it was the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General who had to deal with it, because the Minister of Agriculture obviously knew nothing about it—

Mr. STEPHEN: He said so on the Second Reading.

Mr. MAXTON: Neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the Solicitor-General took the trouble to be adequately represented in a responsible way on the Select
Committee. The whole direction and administration of this public property is in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, from whose ordinary Parliamentary and administrative work it is miles away. The House of Commons and the public generally are being led to believe that the direction is in the hands of Commissioners, men, presumably, like the Forestry Commissioners or like the Electricity Commissioners or the Board set up to look after broadcasting. They believe there is a special body of Commissioners, with special knowledge, looking after this property. Nothing of the kind. One Commissioner is the Minister of Agriculture, and the other Commissioner is a permanent civil servant.
The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate are bringing forward a Bill, which has been before the House already, but has not made much progress—at the moment we do not see much hope for it—called the Reorganisation of Offices (Scotland) Bill. They say in that Bill that in Scotland we do not need any of these Commissioners, or these special Boards composed of expert people brought in from outside, to administer or advise a particular Department, but that the work can best be done by the permanent civil servant acting under the Minister. That is the claim made in regard to the administration of Scottish affairs, but in regard to the administration of Crown lands in England the claim is made that a body of Commissioners must be appointed.
I want to know what is the policy of the Government. Do they believe in having Commissioners or in having a Minister to direct all the different functions that may come within the scope of his Department? If they do not believe in Commissioners I ask them why? If they believe that the permanent civil servant can efficiently do the work I want to be told why they put the country to the expense of setting up this year boards to direct broadcasting and electricity, involving a very considerable expense to the community If they believe this is necessary then we ought to know the reason why. If Crown lands are to be placed under the administration of the Minister of Agriculture then let this Bill say so distinctly. If they are to come
under the administration of Commissioners then let us have men specially set aside to devote themselves to this task, men who will act independently and who will be Perfectly free to do this particular work.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) who has just sat down was a member of the Select Committee, and he has given, quite accurately, so far as I heard him, the number of the Commissioners, and has mentioned who are the Commissioners. As the hon. Member has stated, the Commissioners are a permanent civil servant and the Minister of Agriculture for the time being. There is power to appoint a third Commissioner. The hon. Member has made a criticism on the ground that these are not proper Commissioners. I do not know where he gets his meaning of the word "Commissioner" from. I understand by the word "Commissioner" a person to whom a commission is entrusted.

Mr. MAXTON: You are thinking of a commissionaire.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am not thinking either of a commissionaire or a bookmaker, but I am thinking of a Commissioner. Whether the hon. Member has misunderstood the word "Commissioner" or not I do not know, but these two gentlemen are entrusted with certain duties which would otherwise be carried out by the person who is the legal owner of the land. The hon. Member for Bridgeton referred to the Forestry Commissioners. They are entrusted with a particular duty. The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty are Commissioners appointed to carry out the duties of the office of the Lord High Admiral which is in commission. I hope those illustrations will be sufficient to enlighten the hon. Member for Bridgeton as to what is a Commissioner.

Mr. MAXTON: My point is that the definition which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given would cover a message boy in any Government Department, and he should treat my point quite seriously.

9.0 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am treating the point quite seriously, and I was giving the hon. Member credit for
stating a serious argument. I have given him a serious and accurate answer. If the hon. Member's observations about Commissioners were intended to be facetious, then I was mistaken. The next criticism about the Commissioners was that there were only two of them, and that is quite true. I think the hon. Member also said something about economy. After all, it is a small step towards economy to have two people to do this work, if they can do it properly, instead of three. Of course, somebody must do the work. If the hon. Member for Bridgeton thinks that there ought to be three Commissioners, then he cannot turn round and say we should have no people to do the work. The present position is that the Minister of Agriculture is ex officio one of the Commissioners. That is a great advantage to hon. Members who might desire to discuss the work of the Commissioners, because they will have an opportunity of cross-examining the Minister by questions in this House and by way of debate. It was, moreover, no rusty and stale Act of Parliament that decreed this, but an Act passed, not in the heyday of any wicked Tory Government, but in 1906, and that was the time when the Minister of Agriculture was made an ex officio member of the Commissioners. I hope it will satisfy the hon. Member for Bridgeton that all is well in the administration of Crown lands to-day when I tell him that the right hon. Gentleman, who was formerly Minister of Agriculture, said on the Second Reading:
Crown lands are a model to me of the way lands should be dealt with.
When I have an unsolicited testimonial of that character, I think it is advisable that I should call attention to it. It seems to me quite unnecessary to provide that there shall be three Commissioners, because there may be three at the present time. The only question is whether the appointment of three should be voluntary or compulsory. Another point raised is that the Commissioners shall be appointed by the Treasury. We think it is better that one of the Commissioners should be the Minister of Agriculture who is not appointed by the Treasury, and it seems sufficient that we should maintain the existing practice by which the other Commissioners are appointed under the Sign Manual, the lands being held in
the right of the Crown. I hope the hon. Member for Bridgeton will see that neither in theory nor practice is it necessary to press his Amendment, and that he will agree, after the opinions I have expressed, that it is not necessary to consider this particular proposal any further.

Mr. TINKER: I want to support the Amendment for one or two purposes. When the Bill came before the House for Second Reading, it was very late at night, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) protested—

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I must interrupt the hon. Member, if he will allow me. I do not think the Bill was brought in late at night, because I notice that it was immediately followed by a Debate on a private Member's Motion which began at a quarter past eight.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What happened was that it came on at 10 minutes past eight, and we could have talked the Bill out, but we agreed to allow it to go through on the understanding that, when the matter was again raised, a full and ample discussion would be allowed.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not want to keep on interrupting, but it will be just as well to get the matter clear. No fewer than 40 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT were taken up by the Second Reading Debate.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That may be quite true, but the point is that it was only on a special plea being made that the Bill would be further examined that we agreed to let it go through. You have counted the pages, but have not read the matter.

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is in possession of the Committee.

Mr. TINKER: I stand corrected, but my recollection was that we had not sufficient time. Speaking for myself, I had no idea at that moment what was meant by Crown lands. I had a vague idea that they belonged to the King, and that in some way or other he got the Revenue, but that was all I knew. Since then I have followed the provisions of the Bill closely, and have also read the
findings of the Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) was a member, and I find that Crown lands are a more important matter than many Members think. The revenues amount to £1,400,000, and there are investments other than in lands amounting to £2,500,000. There was also a sale of land last year to the value of £188,000, and land was bought for £189,000. It therefore becomes apparent that the matter is rather a big one, which warrants the giving of some attention to it by Parliament. I claim that, in so big a matter as this, it is necessary that Parliament should know exactly who controls these lands. During the discussions of the Committee it was shown that the control was left in the hands of two persons, one a civil servant and the other the Minister of Agriculture; and, judging by the Report, it would seem that the Minister of Agriculture really sanctions what the civil servant tells him to do. In a matter like this, greater control ought to be exercised, and three Commissioners ought to be appointed by the Treasury or by this House, so that from time to time we should know exactly what is taking place. I do not think that land in the possession of the State ought to be sold to private individuals without the most careful inquiry and without the control of Parliament, and that is a point which I desire should be closely watched. The Minister of Agriculture, whoever he may be, may be acting in the interests of his party and in the interest of the State, but I think the whole control ought not to be vested in him. For these reasons I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division, in order that Parliament may have the fullest possible control over a matter like this.
I should like to ask the Solicitor-General what is paid to the Sovereign when he hands over the lands at the commencement of his reign. I do not know, Mr. Hope, whether you will allow me to put this question, but, under Clause 1 of the Bill, the whole power is vested in the Commissioners, and I understand that, when a new Sovereign takes over, he hands over the lands to the Commissioners, and a certain sum of money is paid to him out of the Civil List or something of the sort, and I would like to know exactly the value of
that transaction. I think that matters like this ought to come right, into the open, so that everyone will know exactly what is taking place. Very few people, I think, realise the extent to which the Crown—

The CHAIRMAN: We cannot have a Debate on this matter. The hon. Member asked a question, and I rather treated it on what lawyers call the de minimis principle. The Solicitor-General might answer that question, but we cannot have a Debate on the whole question of the tenure of Crown lands.

Mr. TINKER: I was wondering whether I was in order. However, you have allowed me to put the question. It is for this purpose that I am supporting this Amendment, so that we may have the fullest possible inquiry and knowledge as to the Crown lands and their value.

Mr. MAXTON: With reference to the ruling which you have just given, this Bill raises all the questions of how Crown lands are held, how they are let, how they are disposed of, whether they are bought, or sold, or leased, or anything else. Is it not in order, in discussing the question whether the Commissioners should be set up or not, and what powers they have, to consider in very great detail the duties that they perform?

The CHAIRMAN: Hardly on an Amendment that the Treasury should appoint them.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I should like to ask your guidance on this point. I have a very vivid recollection of the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, and we did allow it to go through, without taking up all the time that we might have taken in discussing it, on the understanding that it would be taken upstairs to a. Select Committee, and, that when the Report of that Committee was brought back to this House—which I take it is the stage in which we are now—we should have an ample opportunity of discussing the Report as throwing light upon the Bill itself. Certainly, we should not so readily have agreed to the Second Reading if we had been given to understand that we could not debate the whole question of the Bill at this stage in the light of the Report of the
Select Committee. I wish to ascertain from the Government what is their policy on the whole question of the ownership and disposal of Crown lands.

The CHAIRMAN: That is a question that could, I should imagine, without prejudice to what Mr. Speaker might think, be raised on the Third Reading, but it certainly cannot be raised on this Amendment.

Mr. JONES: Could I hand in a manuscript Amendment at this moment to delete Clause 1, in order to give us an opportunity of discussing Clause 1 as it is?

The CHAIRMAN: In Committee an Amendment to delete a Clause is not in order; the Question has to be put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Whether the hon. Member's observations on that will be in order, I cannot tell until the question arises.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Further on that point, I would like to ask your guidance, because the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. (Pinker) was stopped because he was asking how much money accrued to the Crown—that is, the King, though we are not allowed to use his name in this House. I want to know how much money went to the King on that occasion. Whenever this matter comes up, we are turned down, and we have the greatest difficulty in finding out what is the income that the Royal Family has.

The CHAIRMAN: That cannot possibly arise on this Amendment; the hon. Member cannot pursue that point.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The money that is coming from the Crown Lands is income, and it is going to the King. Surely, we are perfectly justified and entitled—or we are entitled to nothing at all—

The CHAIRMAN: This is not in order. Moreover, the very point that was put by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) shows, I think, that it is really not relevant to this matter at all, because the revenue from the Crown Lands is surrendered by the Sovereign at the beginning of each reign. The Civil List is granted by special Act of Parliament. The hon. Member asked, I understand, what the amount was in the last reign. That, I thought, might be answered, but
it is impossible to go further into the constitutional position. The income of the Royal Family is settled by the Civil List and the Sovereign does not get the revenues from the Crown Lands.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Solicitor-General must be aware that, the Act of 1906 did not in fact appoint the three Commissioners. There were only two members who attended regularly. One was the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the other was an hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. Mr. Bidder said:
Section 1 is as follows:
The President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the time being shall, by virtue of his office, be a Commissioner of Woods,'
which to me is not giving him a definite appointment as Commissioner of Crown Lands. I may be simple. I know I am. I have all the evidences of it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the hon. Member will read the two following paragraphs, he will find all the information.

Mr. MAXTON: No, he will not.

The CHAIRMAN: May I point out that the hon. Member for Gorbals is in possession.

Mr. MAXTON: Can the Solicitor-General find any place where the Commissioners of Crown lands are established? I could not find it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am very anxious for information. I was going to read on:
The President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries for the time being shall, by virtue of his office, be a Commissioner of Woods under the Crown Lands Act, 1851, in addition to the Commissioners whom His Majesty has power to appoint under that Act.
That is not appointing a Commissioner of the Crown lands. In making a reference to the system of appointment, Mr. Bidder said:
This is only as to which servant of the Sovereign shall look after them. They are still in the hands of the Government. On the change of the Crown they could all be resumed by the Crown.
On page 4, you again find there is no reference to the appointment of the Commissioners of Crown lands. Who ap-
pointed the Commissioners and whence did they derive their power? They were not appointed by the 1906 Act nor the 1851 Act. They were appointed First Commissioners of Woods. You ought to try to take into account what the ordinary person thinks, and you have no right to take advantage of what he thinks and coin a fancy phrase to which you can give another interpretation. What does the ordinary man think a Commissioner is? It may be argued that we all know what a Solicitor-General is. Anyone who wanted to be foolish might describe him as a General who solicits. The popular mind thinks Commissioners are similar to those appointed under the Electricity Act or the Broadcasting Act. They may think the Commissioners are apart altogether from a Minister who is acting in his capacity as political head of a Department. I wish to ask, first, under what Act are they appointed? Can the Solicitor-General tell me why he is appointed a Commissioner of Woods instead of a Commissioner of Crown lands. At what date was the title changed? What power have you had to alter it since, and is not the appointment by the Minister of Agriculture totally illegal and contrary to the spirit and meaning of the original Act? I hope the Solicitor-General will spare two minutes to answer these questions.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am always willing to respond to an appeal made so kindly. The hon. Member is, obviously, in search of information, and when I am able to give him any information, I am glad to do so. At the same time, I must not detain the Committee long. The title of the gentlemen who look after the Crown lands has varied. At one time, over 100 years ago, they were called Surveyor-Generals. The change from the expression "Commissioner of Woods" took place recently, in 1923, when the establishment of the Forestry Commissioners made it undesirable to have two bodies in which the word "Forest" appeared. The title was "Commissioner of Woods and Forests" at one time, and when the Forestry Commission was established, there appeared to be a danger of confusion between the two bodies, and by an Order made in 1924 the Commissioners of Woods and Forests received a new name which is the
name they bear to-day, namely, the Commissioners of Crown Lands. The Acts of Parliament which empowered the appointment of two persons to act as Commissioners of Crown Lands are the Crown Lands Act, 1829, and the Crown Lands Act, 1851. I do not know whether this short narrative will satisfy the thirst of the hon. Gentleman for information, but I think that is as much as it would be proper to give.

Mr. TINKER: There was a question in the Report of the Select Committee asking what had been paid to the Sovereign for estates.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is not the rule, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the late Minister of Agriculture, knows, to speak of the Sovereign being paid anything for having owned the estate. By long constitutional practice the Crown lands are surrendered, and the revenue from them goes into the Treasury. His Majesty receives from Parliament, under the Civil List Act, which, of course, dates back to 1910 in relation to his present Majesty, certain sums. I do not bear them in mind, and they seem to me to have little to do with this Bill, but I think they would be found to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £500,000.

The CHAIRMAN: I understood the question was what was the value of the revenue surrendered after the last demise of the Crown. I do not think we can go into this further point.

Mr. TINKER: The point I am trying to get at is this. It appeared in the Report of the Committee where we read:
Question 75: What I understand Mr. Stocks to paint out is that there are lands that belong to the Sovereign, and at the beginning of each Reign the Sovereign hands over the lands to the Commissioners of Crown Lands in return for an income paid into a fund. What is the fund?
Answer: The Civil List.
I am only seeking for information. I am not seeking to enter into a private matter.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have given it.

Mr. BUXTON: Perhaps I may say a word in reference to what was urged by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) a few minutes ago. He desired that
Parliamentary control should be established over this Department and that is exactly what was desired when the change was made in 1906. The Act of 1906, it appears to me, gave to the Government and the Minister of Agriculture just that control which my hon. Friend desires, and it was owing to that that the Crown lands came to be utilised for agricultural experiments, particularly in connection with small holdings. That method, I think, meets my hon. Friend's view, and it is precisely that method which he and I would like to see applied to the Forestry Commission. It is by making the Minister a member that you get control, and I do not think that from that standpoint the position can be improved upon what it is now.

Mr. MAXTON: I am not at all satisfied by the Solicitor-General's description of how these Commissioners of Crown Lands have arisen. I have given serious study to this, and have tried to find out where they were established. I cannot find it. I know the 1851 Act, but that was a different body of Commissioners altogether. I know that from them was taken the work of the Forestry Commission and the work of the First Commissioner of Works Department and the residue, after that work had been taken away has been called the Commissioners of Crown Lands, but I do not know where they were set up. I endeavoured to find out in the Select Committee, and I asked a responsible representative who appointed them, but he did not know.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I have stated that this evening.

Mr. MAXTON: He stated that the Minister of Agriculture appoints them.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: No. The Minister of Agriculture is ex officio by Act of Parliament and the two other Commissioners are appointed under the Sign Manual.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What is that?

Mr. MAXTON: The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Kirkwood) expresses my position, and I am not ashamed to admit it. Hon. Members opposite tried when that was mentioned to look wise as if they understood what was meant by the Sign Manual. It did not convey any-
thing to me. I would be glad to find out what is the. Sign Manual that empowers the Minister of Agriculture to be a Commissioner of Crown Lands and select whoever else he pleases. The whole position is irregular, and I honestly put down this Amendment with the intention to regularise the position. This matter is absolutely of no moment to me as an individual. I would abolish the lot and the Electricity Commission and the Broadcast Commission. They are of no importance to me; but I was sent to this House to do responsible work and to examine this Bill. I tried to find out honestly and squarely. I could have killed this Bill in Committee. On the second day of the Committee the Government representatives, seven in number, had so little interest in it that only one junior Member on the second, bench was there. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown) and myself formed the majority on that Committee, and we could have killed it stone dead at that stage. I was very much tempted to do it, and I do not think that the slight gains that are made in the machinery would justify the House being troubled about it.
I make this proposal to put this irregular matter on a sound, sensible footing. The hon. and learned Gentleman, instead of welcoming that help, tries to come forward with a definition of what a Commissioner was. He knows that is nothing, if one wants to make fun of it, but it is really not right in this House where we are supposed to do responsible work. He knows that a Commissioner in political matters is a very definite Commissioner. It does not mean a man who runs with a message in the way that a messenger boy does. It does not mean that, does it?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: indicated dissent.

Mr. MAXTON: Sometimes the hon. and learned Gentleman nods his head vertically and at other times horizontally, but never sufficiently to endanger the stability of his head, unfortunately. It means something more than a messenger boy. He is a person who is carrying out a commission. If the hon. and learned Gentleman calls one of his junior boys in the Solicitor-General's Department to go
over to the Lord Advocate for Scotland to tell him exactly what he has to say on a particular Measure, he carries that in an envelope and is carrying out a commission. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself would not dream of calling that messenger a Commissioner. Why attempt to get the votes of the hon. Members sitting behind him by a trivial argument like that? He will get their votes in any case. He knows that the cattle will be called home at the appointed time without Mary.

The CHAIRMAN: The substance of the Amendment is that the Commissioners shall be three in number, and be appointed by the Treasury. This bucolic reference is quite irrelevant to the point at issue.

Mr. MAXTON: Surely, all sorts of animals roam over those lands. What I am endeavouring to do, is to persuade the Minister to accept the Amendment. I think the point with which I was dealing just now is quite close to the matter in hand, and much closer than a lot of things I have said here on various Measures. He knows perfectly well that a more definite meaning is attached to the word "Commissioner" than the very vague general phrase he tries to make. A commissioner is a man with a definite standing. If he had said he was a person holding His Majesty's Commission, as in the Army, a parson who has some sort of independence of ordinary departmental control, then I would have accepted that as a fair attempt to deal with the subject. He did not do that. I suggest that if we are going to have Commissioners, let us have men who can sit and make decisions and bend their energies and their thoughts to this problem. I have tried, in this Amendment, to meet that point of view. No Commissioner of Crown Lands was ever appointed. There is no Statute that Entitles Commissioners of Crown Lands to sit. I am trying to make the thing legal and statutory. Listen to this bit of cross-examination during a Select Committee. Remember, this is the one man who really knows something about the business—a permanent official in the department, and when the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the statement of my right hon. Friend, the late Minister of Agriculture, and the tribute he had paid to the administration
of the Crown Lands, he was merely repeating what I have already said, namely, that the responsible officials in that department were doing their work very efficiently. It was the higher control, the general application of policy that was wrong, not the day-by-day administration of the business. It is to get that higher control right that I am taking this trouble to-day, with, very little encouragement from the hon. and learned Gentleman who has been left with the job of handling the work of the Ministry of Agriculture, who has run away. This bit of cross-examination is on page 11 of the Report of the Select Committee. I said to this responsible solicitor to the Commissioners of Crown Lands:
Do I understand that there is a vacancy for a Commissioner at the present time?
The reply was:
No, I do not think there is a vacancy. I think they have decided there shall only be two Commissioners, one commission held by Mr. Gaye who is here, and the other held by the Minister of Agriculture.
I said,
When you say 'they have decided,' whom do you mean?
He replied:
I ought perhaps to have said 'you.'
I said,
I am just as anxious as you are to avoid responsibility.
He said:
I am not sure, but I think it is under the Act.
There is no Act, so it is not under the Act. He does not know who appoints thorn. Nobody knows who appoints them; nobody here and nobody in the whole country. I wish hon. Members to realise that there is a point of some considerable constitutional importance here—you have got three Commissioners to-day charged with the task of looking after Crown Lands. There is an argument for three Commissioners and there is an argument for one Commissioner, but there certainly is no argument for two Commissioners. That is the one possible number that is quite useless. That point is obvious. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why"?] There is no independence of judgment there. You are going to have stalemate if there is a serious difference of opinion.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: The same thing occurs if there are four, six, eight or 10.

Mr. MAXTON: I agree. The same thing would apply to an even number, with certain differences. If you have four men, you may have one who is prepared to act as a compromiser or peacemaker between two other very harsh opinions. If you have two men and they start damning each other, there is very little chance of compromise. The hon. Member knows from his own temperament exactly how that sort of thing works. If he and the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Rose) were together they would not agree for more than three minutes, whereas, if I were there, I believe I could persuade both of them to come together. There are three Commissioners. One of them dies. We are left with two Commissioners. One of them holds his title, as alleged by the Solicitor-General, under the Act of 1906. But when reference is made to the 1906 Act, there is no appointment of a Commissioner of Crown Lands there. So that the Minister of Agriculture is doing a job for which he has got no legal sanction at all. He is acting quite illegally in calling himself the Chief Commissioner of Crown Lands. He could have called himself a Commissioner of Forests. He could have called himself a Commissioner of Woods and Forests, but the one thing he is not entitled to call himself is a Commissioner of Crown Lands. He is carrying on an illicit traffic when he is disposing of these Crown Lands.
Then, the Solicitor-General tells us that the other Commissioner is appointed by Sign Manual. I should like to hear the right hon. Gentleman explain what exactly "Sign Manual" means. He is not showing any disposition to do so. I have made one or two tentative suggestions to him that he might rise to explain to a waiting House and a waiting country exactly what Sign Manual means, but up to now he has not responded. Perhaps it is for that explanation that he has sent for the Minister of Agriculture. One of the three Commissioners dies, there are two left, and it seems to be a matter of no importance whether the vacancy shall be filled or not. If it be of no importance about the third Commissioner, then it is of no importance
about the second one at all. The Solicitor-General tries to make some petty point about economy, and that I should be gratified at economy that is brought about by doing with two instead of having three Commissioners. Of course, we are all very anxious to economise about the things on which we think we ought to economise. We could economise, for instance, on the Chinese expedition and things of that description, and that would save much more than by dropping one Commissioner.
You do not save a great deal of money by discarding one unpaid Commissioner. In fairness to the Commissioner who died, I am not suggesting that he was not an unpaid Commissioner. We know there are a great number of men who are doing Commissioners' work and who are unpaid, and I hope there is still that amount of enthusiasm for public service to provide a Commissioner for Crown Lands who does not require to be remunerated; but if you had to get some person who is dependent upon the income he might secure you could get such a person with the necessary anxiety to do public service without paying him a great amount for it. The general direction of the Crown Lands throughout the country would be justified by the small additional expenditure. Therefore, with the best wish in the world—I said when I got up that I was not anxious to destroy the harmony that has characterised the proceedings—I am afraid that unless the Minister of Agriculture or the Solicitor General gives me some more satisfactory explanation of where these Commissioners go. from whence they come, and how they are going to operate, I shall be compelled to press my Amendment.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I hope the Minister for Agriculture will give us some better reason than he has done. The Solicitor-General has said that the system is very antiquated, and he gave us a little of the history of the last 100 years, but, if it be antiquated, why not modernise it as proposed in this Amendment? Let us have a definite, record by the acceptance of this Amendment of the appointment of the three Commissioners in this way. Surely, there can be no objection to regulating the appointment of these Commissioners? We have had no
evidence up to the present of the origin of their particular functions or of the changes, and it might be a real convenience to the Government to accept this Amendment, which I support.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to ask the Solicitor-General to try to make the matter a little more clear than thus far he has been able to do. As I understand it, what he said was, that there were certain individuals who were called Surveyors General over a hundred years ago, and by legislation in 1829 and 1851 there were statutory provisions made for the appointment of individuals, either Commissioners of Woods and Forests, Surveyors General, or other officials. Then under the 1906 Act the Minister of Agriculture was made ex officio a member of Woods and Forests, and under the 1924 Act the Commissioners of Woods and Forests ceased to be Commissioners because of the fact that the Forestry Commissioners had been appointed, and there was a desire that there should be no confusion in regard to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests and the Forestry Commission. I think I begin to see light in connection with this matter. Perhaps it would not trouble the Solicitor-General too much if lie would read us from the Act the relevant sentence in which this exchange is made in title from Commissioner of Woods and Forests to Commissioner of Crown Lands. If I could get the Solicitor-General to give me the definite reference or quote the paragraph, then I would be able to follow the history of this Crown Lards Commission and would understand the position.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would not have intervened at this late hour but for the fact that it is beginning to dawn on me that there is something fishy about this Bill, something not just what is generally supposed to be playing cricket, and that the Government that happen to be in power at the moment are doing something that is shady, although this is not the only time that the Government have done shady things. Again, it is beginning to dawn on me that it is just possible that this is one of the shady things that the ruling class of this country is capable of doing and posing that it is quite a friendly thing, and that it is for the benefit of humanity in general, because it appears there are some Labour men who are quite
friendly disposed towards this Bill. But it is not the first time that because of the generous spirit that prevails in this House among Labour men we have been let down. We are not going to be let down so easily on this occasion, I hope, because the Solicitor-General is sitting there on his seat quite tight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Being an individual who has never tasted strong drink in my life, it never dawned on me that I was saying anything that could be taken to be wrong.

The CHAIRMAN: I presume that the hon. Member is going to address himself to the Amendment, and I invite him to do so.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I thank you, Sir, for that breathing space. I was asking for a reply from the Solicitor-General to the questions that have been submitted from this side of the House. I was pointing out that it was evident that the questions that were being put to him were of such a character that he would have difficulty in replying to them, because he has sent for the all-powerful, wise and illustrious Minister of Agriculture, to whom the Bill applies, and who should reply, because he is well paid for the job. The question to which I want a reply from either of the two bright chaps is this: Who appoints these Commissioners? That question has never been answered. Hon. Members would think that we were sent here from Scotland just for the fun of the thing. We were sent here to keep our eyes on the Tories, because we are going to do all we can to chase the Tories out of Scotland. This is another indication that there is something wrong. Why cannot those who are in charge of the Bill—I do not know how many of them there are—tell us who appoints the Commissioners? There is money involved here. You have two or three cushy jobs, as we say among the working classes; jobs that are well paid. Who is going to appoint those individuals, and who has given the people who will appoint them the authority to do so? We cannot find out. Our representative, the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), whom the House is bound to admit has taken an active part and who is an intelligent man, and who therefore would take an intelligent interest in this matter—we gave one of
our most brilliant colleagues to use his brilliant intellect for your benefit—is evidently the only individual who is taking an intelligent interest in the business under discussion. Because he has done so, instead of being treated as he ought and being met with fair and open dealing when he gave his report, which he amplified to-day, we get what is usual from the Solicitor-General. We are told about some Sign Manual. You would think it was King Manuel of Portugal about whom they are talking.
When my colleague was on his feet the Solicitor-General was rubbing his brow. That, as an hon. Friend on our Front Bench suggests, was the sign manual. But all the talk we may do here, and all the holding up of the House that we may do—because we are going to hold this House up, and you had better advise them, Mr. Chief Whip, to give us an answer if you want to get away—

The CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that he must address himself to me.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I apologise to you, Sir, for addressing the Chief Whip. Really, I was addressing him, through you, although I did not happen to mention your name, because he is the most unpleasant-looking fellow who sits on the Government Front Bench.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member should revise his sense of what is humorous.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I did not catch that, so I am not able to reply to it, humorously or otherwise. If I had caught it, probably I should have replied humorously, but it just depends on how I feel at the moment. I will forgive you for that also, Sir. We want an answer from the Government, or we shall divide the House. We want to know who has the power to appoint these Commissioners, and whether the Government has arrogated to itself, unconstitutionally, the power to appoint them. There is no Act on the Statute Book which gives them the power to do so. I want to warn the Government, who pose as being so tremendously powerful. They have got a good deal of their own way; with their might they have rushed through one of the most terrible Bills that has ever been
before this House, so far as the working classes are concerned, and the result is that they are beginning to be so confident of their strength that they think they can do anything they jolly well like, and that they can treat us with contempt, because that is what it amounts to.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment, which is the appointment of three Commissioners by the Treasury.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I agree, Mr. Hope. I hope that you see my point, which is that I am anxious to get a reply to the questions, which have never been answered. There is no other way in which we can get a reply than by reasoning together here. We have to force a reply out of the Government, whether they will give it or not. We do not desire to see physical force used in this House. Time and again, we have used our influence, strange as it may seem, against physical violence being used here. It has been used against some of my colleagues, but we are going to block the business constitutionally, of course, Sir, under your guidance. You will tell us when we are acting correctly.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member for the second time to address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want a reply to the questions put by my colleagues. We want to know who appoints the Commissioners, who gave those who appoint them the power to do so and under what Act the Government have taken this action.

Mr. STEPHEN: I want to put it to the Solicitor-General that he might have acceded to my request and told me under which Statute the transfer of title was made. I have been looking at the Minutes of Evidence taken by the Select Committee and I find that it states that it was not under a Statute that the change was made. One of the witnesses, Mr. Bidder, was asked by the Chairman:
The Crown Land Commissioners, if I remember rightly, succeeded the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, did they not?

Mr. BIDDER: Yes, a year or two ago. I think it was 1924. Of course, it is only a change of name. On the appointment of the Forestry Commissioners, I think it was found inconvenient to continue the Com-
missioners of Woods and Forests, and their names changed by an Order to 'Commissioners of Crown Lands.'"
Are we to take it that the authority for the change of title was made by an Order and not by Statute?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It was made by the Forestry (Title of Commissioners of Woods) Order, 1924.

Mr. STEPHEN: Under what Statute was that Order made? I take it that there is a Statute for the issue of that Order. It seems to me to be the one missing link in connection with the evidence, and perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to satisfy me on that point.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Act, 1923.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman might quite well accede to the terms of this Amendment. The experience we have had in this House with the Forestry Commission for whom there is nobody to answer here—and public money is being spent without effective Parliamentary control—is that the defence put up by the Government to criticisms of that extraordinary situation is that at the expiration of the particular period the matter will come under revision. We have been led to believe by the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury that he, at all events, will have no more of it. What my hon. Friends are asking for, I think quite reasonably, is that we shall have three Commissioners appointed by the Treasury. It will then be perfectly clear that this House will have the right of criticism, through the Minister, of any operation in the way of selling or disposing of Crown lands. Otherwise, it seems to me that the disposal of what is virtually public property will be placed in precisely the same position, so far as Parliamentary criticism is concerned, as the present operations of the Forestry Commission.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Gentleman would defeat his own end if this Amend-were accepted. The object of appointing the Minister of Agriculture an ex officio Commissioner of Crown Lands was that there should be some Minister answerable to Parliament for anything which Parliament might desire to know. The hon. Member has quoted the case of the
Forestry Commission, and his complaint is that in the case of that Commission there is no adequate means of Parliamentary criticism, and yet he now wishes to put the Commissioners of Crown lands back into the same position as the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission is under the Treasury, and hon. Members opposite never tire of telling us that that system does not give them adequate opportunity of criticism and information. For that reason, instead of this Amendment giving them better control, it would remove that control and that responsibility to Parliament which already exists.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The right hon. Gentleman says, if I understand him rightly, that this Bill appointed the Minister of Agriculture as a Commissioner of Crown lands. There is nothing in this Bill which appears to give the House of Commons any right of criticism of the right hon. Gentleman's actions, so far as the Crown Lands Commissioners are concerned.

Mr. GUINNESS: Because that power already exists.

Mr. RITSON: I have been amazed at the attitude of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), whose abilities no one questions, unfortunately is taken sometimes for a humourist when he is a statesman. He is pleading for information on an important matter dealing with £2,500,000. The Minister of Agriculture seems to be a somnambulist. He seems to walk in his sleep. If I may take an example, there is at the present time a Bill going through this House, the Trade Union Bill, and the Government say they are so anxious that members of trade unions should be protected and informed as to how their funds stand that they are taking away trade union liberties. That Bill has not been asked for by the workers. Here, is this case, the country has a right to ask for information about Crown lands and one would have thought that the Government would have been only too willing to give it. One would expect that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture would, in his own interests, have given us all the possible explanations. We talk about feeling in the country, and about patriotic feeling, and we are asking for
information about the Crown lands and how the Crown Land Commissioners are appointed, and we cannot get the information. We have the fullest right to information on behalf of the public generally.

Mr. MAXTON: Again, I express my regret at intervening in this discussion. In answer to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General referred him to the Act of 1923. I have taken the trouble to get the Act. I have gone through it very carefully, and I am afraid that, with the best will in the world, I cannot find anything that sets up Crown Land Commissioners in that Act. There is nothing in it which entitles the Minister of Agriculture or any other Government Department to issue an Order setting up Crown Land Commissioners.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman is unwittingly under a misapprehension. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) asked me what was the Act of Parliament which empowered an Order to be made, and I named the Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Act, 1923, as the Act which empowers the Order to be made. If the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) looks at Section 4, he will find the authority for my statement.

Mr. MAXTON: This is much worse even than I had anticipated:
Where at the time of the transfer of any property under this Act any proceedings are pending to which any other Government Department"—
an existing Government Department not a new Government Department—
or the Forestry Commissioners are a party, and such proceedings have reference to property transferred under this Act,"—

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: indicated dissent.

Mr. MAXTON: Am I wrong?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member is reading the wrong part. That is not Section 4.

Mr. MAXTON: Section 4! This is not quite so bad. By exercising a fair amount of elasticity the Minister could, I admit quite frankly, under this Section claim that he had the right. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, I am making the
admission quite genuinely, and a tremendous lot of time would have been saved had the hon. and learned Member referred me to this Section before I went on to the Select Committee:
His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for altering the title of the Commissioners of Woods in such manner as may seem appropriate, and, if such provision is made, the Crown Lands Acts, 1829 to 1913, and any other Act or instrument relating to the Commissioners shall have effect accordingly with the necessary modifications.
There is nothing in that Section about three Commissioners or two Commissioners, and I am certain that the Section was never intended to set up a new Government Department, as we are now doing, with its special legislation, special powers and special duties. I admit that, by stretching this Section to its very widest, the Minister could claim the right, but judging from the time that it has taken him and his assistants to discover this Section, he recognises that it is straining the Statute very far to make this the basis for setting up what is, to all intents and purposes, a new Department.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. BUXTON: May I ask whether the Minister of Agriculture has any statement to make in regard to the adaptation of the town planning schemes to Crown lands?

Mr. GUINNESS: We are considering this matter, and we hope to be in a posítion to bring up a Clause in another place.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Powers of Sale.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. MARDY JONES: I wish to draw attention to a point in connection with Clause 2, on which I failed to obtain an explanation on the Second Reading.

Clause 2 provides that,
The Commissioners of Crown Lands—
(i) May sell any Crown land or any easement, right or privilege of any kind over or in relation to Crown land.

The point on which I desire information relates to paragraph (2):
Where any Crown land comprises a manor, may sell the seignory of any freehold land within the manor, with or without any exception or reservation of all or any mines or minerals, or of any rights or powers relative to mining purposes, so as in every such case to effect an extinguishment of the manorial incidents.

We have had no information during the proceedings on the Bill, or even in the Report of the Select Committee, as to the extent of the Crown lands which contain minerals, which contain coal seams, and in which part of the country those coal seams are situated. On this Clause it is relevant that we should secure from the Government some statement as to their policy on the question of minerals like coal and iron ore; whether they are going to encourage the Commissioners, who will be charged with the administration of this Measure, to sell the freehold outright or whether they are going to limit their policy to the leasing of these minerals, to be worked by private enterprise or public authorities. There are several large municipal authorities, who are large users and consumers of coal for their own purposes, who are seriously considering the purchasing of mineral land so that they can own and work them direct, and thus save the profits of the middlemen who come between the producer and the consumer. It is important, in the light of the coal dispute of last year and the unsatisfactory settlements which have accrued as a result of that great dispute, that we should get from the Government some statement as to whether they are prepared to give some consideration to the miners of this country, who, after all, are a very considerable portion of the community. There are well over a million miners, under normal conditions, engaged in the industry and with their dependents they comprise four millions to five millions of the entire population. There is at the present moment considerable discontent in every coalfield in this country as a result of the last settlement and the policy of the Government—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may raise the question as to whether the Crown should sell with or without reservation the minerals, but he cannot go into these other matters.

Mr. JONES: That is the very point. I am trying to get at. I want to know whether it is the policy of the Government to retain these minerals as freehold, or whether they are going to lease them. I want to know whether they propose to sell outright, to lease them, or whether they will not consider the other alternative of working the minerals themselves. I submit that it is one of the functions of the Crown to make the best use of its property, and as we have coal measures of a considerable extent which are public property I think this is an excellent opportunity for the Government to ascertain at first hand what is wrong with the coal industry of this country. If they would only exploit the coal measures which are in Crown property, develop them and employ the miners of this country direct, then they would be able to find out the real obstacles to the efficiency of the coal industry. It is an excellent opportunity for the Prime Minister to carry out what I accept as his personal assurance, that he is anxious to see the coal industry reorganised and put on a proper footing. Here is an excellent opportunity for the Government to develop these lands as Crown property. I happen to know that some of these Crown lands do contain valuable coal measures, some of the best quality of coal in the country, and it would be a useful national experiment if the Government would carefully and Properly develop the minerals on these Crown lands.
If the Government undertook that function, which they have full power to undertake, it would be a most useful experiment and would enable them to ascertain what is wrong with the industry. The coal measures which they own as Crown property are sufficiently large and sufficiently scattered to enable them to make a fair comparison with existing colliery concerns in several of our coalfields. If this experiment resulted in the discovery of what is at the root of the existing inefficiency and, therefore, at the root of the existing discontent in the coal industry, it would be a great national service. I am not suggesting, that that in itself would prove the case for nationalisation. That issue does not arise to-night, but the, issue of the proper use of Crown lands and of the minerals contained in them, is one of
real substance in relation to this Measure. I should like to see the Secretary for Mines in his place so that he might let us know whether his Department has given any thought to this method of treating Crown lands which contain minerals. The Secretary for Mines has no excuse for his absence, because a number of Members on this side, during the Second Reading Debate, made it clear that they wanted to know the attitude of the Government on this matter. I do not know why the Mines Department should not have exercised the opportunity given it since the Second Reading of this Bill to ascertain how far it is practicable to go in the direction I have indicated.
I ask whoever can speak on behalf of the Government in this matter to say whether they are going to instruct the Commissioners to sell these lands and minerals outright if they get a good price —and obviously they should not part with them otherwise—or whether they are going to instruct the Commissioners not to sell these Crown lands, particularly those known to contain minerals of value. Are they going to ask the Commissioners to prepare a report for this House as to whether mineral properties which are Crown lands can be developed on the lines suggested. I put this forward as a serious suggestion because of the discontent which now exists in the coalfields and which is likely to develop into a very grave situation before the end of the year if something is not done. A mere gesture by the Government to show that they are considering this matter on the merits might convince the miners that the Government are not as black as they have been painted and that in the Government there are people who are concerned with the welfare of the miners as a considerable portion of the community. I ask for a definite statement, as to whether Crown lands as a whole, mineral-bearing or otherwise, are to be sold outright to private people or whether it is the policy of the Government, particularly where the land is of value, for building development, recreation or mining, to instruct the Commissioners to retain the ownership of the land. I should also like to know what is their policy with regard to leasing. Let us take the case of a large mineral property situated in a part of the country which has social amenities, healthy conditions and beautiful surroundings. Will
they instruct the Commissioners to town-plan that region or let it be fitted-in with the town planning of the district?

The CHAIRMAN: That point would appear to be relevant on Clause 11.

Mr. JONES: I shall take advantage of the opportunity to raise it on Clause 11, but in the meantime I do press for a reply on the points I have made.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I very much doubt, Sir, whether you would allow me to enter upon a discussion whether it would be for the national advantage that Crown Lands Commissioners should work minerals.

Mr. JONES: Why not?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am addressing myself to you, Sir, and I am expressing a doubt as to whether I should be allowed to enter into a discussion of that question.

Mr. JONES: On a point of Order. I understand that the Chairman of a Committee always agrees to the discussion of such an issue if there be general consent among the Members of the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: That is by no means the case. On very special occasions that has been allowed, but they have to be rare occasions. I think the Solicitor-General would be in order in saying whether it was or was not the policy of the Commissioners of Crown Lands to sell land with or without mineral rights, but he could not go into a general argument as to the advantages of the Crown working mineral rights.

Mr. JONES: On a point of Order. The opinion of the Committee has not been tested on the grave situation which has arisen, and I respectfully suggest to you that this is an occasion on which we should test this very point. There has been no previous opportunity since I have been a Member of this House of discussing this aspect of the Crown lands, and that being the case, and in view of there being what is generally regarded as a serious situation in the coal industry, I would ask whether this is not an occasion when we should be given a definite declaration of policy?

The CHAIRMAN: That might be done if it were in order, but I must rule that it is not in order to discuss this as a question of policy. Questions may be raised as to whether it is the intention of the Government to sell or lease land with or without mineral rights. That would be in order, but it would not be in order to raise the whole question of the Crown working minerals.

Mr. JONES: I am very sorry, but I must press my point still further. Is it not a fact that there are certain Crown properties worked by the Crown to-day, and, therefore, no precedent would be created? The Government already have the powers within this Measure, and for generations past they have administered some of their land and not sub-let it to any outside body.

The CHAIRMAN: If that be so, the matter must come up on some Estimate, and then the question of whether they are properly using their powers could be raised; but it cannot be raised on this Clause.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: I am quite willing to answer the question which the hon. Member has put as to the practice and intentions of the Crown as regards such minerals as may be included in Crown lands, but I was saying that I could not expect to be allowed to enter upon a discussion of the questions of policy which the hon. Member raised. That is your ruling, Sir, and I accept it. I would state, first of all, that there are very few minerals under lands which are Crown lands. Included in the Crown lands are considerable areas of minerals, but these are, in fact, either under the foreshore or under the sea, and it is obvious that those minerals could not be worked by the Crown unless the Crown owned some land on which the necessary shafts could be sunk. As far as those minerals are concerned, they must necessarily be worked by the people who take leases of the minerals because they have means of access to them.

Mr. JONES: The point raised is that the Crown has no right to work the minerals upon adjoining land under the foreshore or under the sea. Has not the Crown the power, like any private person to lease such land from private owners so that they can get access to it?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions, and I am attempting to answer them. The Crown cannot work the minerals unless it gets possession of the land to enable it to make the necessary sinkings. As a matter of fact the Crown does not work minerals and the Commissioners have no power to work minerals. If there be any question as to whether they ought to have such powers, then that question would have to be raised in regard to another Measure altogether. This Bill simply clothes the Commissioners of Crown Lands with certain powers which are exercised by trustees under the Settled Lands Act. The fact that minerals are mentioned is merely incidental to the power which they seek to part with certain rights in land either with minerals under the land or without. Therefore, the question of what use should be made of the minerals appears to have very little connection with this Clause. As a matter of fact, there are very few minerals under lands owned by the Commissioners, and they are either under the foreshore or under the sea. The Crown floes not work any minerals, and it is not taking any powers to work minerals. Although I am afraid that I have not satisfied the desire of the hon. Member for Pontypridd that the Crown should enter upon an interesting experiment, I think I have said all that is to be said upon this Clause.

Mr. TINKER: We have now been getting some very useful information about this Bill. Paragraph (ii) of Clause 2 states that power shall be given
with or without any exception or reservation of all or any mines or minerals.
We want to be quite sure where we stand on this point. It must be realised that at the present time there is a greater output of coal than we require, and we do not want the Crown to start selling further minerals without due regard to the position. We would rather the Crown kept control of all this mineral wealth, because we expect later on that all the wealth of the country will belong to the Crown, and we do not want to sell it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Crown is not selling minerals, and does not propose to sell minerals.

Mr. TINKER: We are only asking for protection against that. On the Report stage I suggest that we should put something into Clause 2 to protect the point we have in mind in this connection. If we could get that assurance, I think we should agree that some power must be given to the Commissioners in regard to the control of the selling of land. If we can get an assurance that these lands will not be put on to the market against the interests of the miners who are being so badly hit at the present time, we shall be quite satisfied.

Mr. MAXTON: The Solicitor-General, in reply to my hon. Friend, has said that there are very few minerals in Crown lands, except in ungetatable positions. I wonder what Crown lands he is thinking of, because, when I was on the Committee examining this Bill, I gathered a definite impression that the Crown lands were always in a state of flux—that there is a perpetual buying and selling of Crown lands. Therefore, while there may be no minerals in the Crown lands possessed to-day, there may be very wealthy mineral resources in the Crown lands that may be purchased to-morrow. My anxiety to have the position of the Commissioners properly regularised, and their status properly established, was because I gathered that the only consideration that weighed in the running of the Department now, in the purchase or sale of any properties, was the commercial consideration—that, if it was going to be a profitable thing to sell land, then the Crown Lands Commissioners would sell land; that, if it was going to be a profitable proposition to buy a particular bit of land, then they would buy land; but that it was only the commercial consideration that weighed in the running of the Crown lands at the present time.
I put the point in the Committee, and I put it here, that, while that may be an adequate outlook for a business man in the management of an estate belonging to himself, or in the investment of money that he has to dispose of, it is not a sufficient consideration in the handling of Crown property. Questions of social amenity, public convenience, the public health, and the public welfare generally, are questions that should weigh very seriously with the Commissioners of Crown lands in the purchase or sale of any
property they may administer, and I put it to the Solicitor-General that it is not an adequate reply to my hon. Friend to say that there are very few minerals. The fact that provision is made in the Bill with reference to mining leases clearly contemplates that, if there are no minerals to be leased at this moment, there may be at some subsequent time, and it might very well be considered by this Government, or by some other Government that will take its place in the very near future, that it would be quite desirable in the public interest not, I admit, that the Crown Lands Commissioners should run undeveloped mineral resources under Crown lands, but that they should lease to the Mines Department, or some other suitable or appropriate public Department, the mineral resources that are there, already owned by the community, for development by another Government Department.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Mardy Jones) has raised this point. I think that the Solicitor-General's answer is not adequate—that it does not touch the very important matters raised. As a Member of the Select Committee, if I could get the question of the Commissioners put right, so that we could have three responsible men, specially chosen for their business capacity and for their public sentiment and desire to help the community, I was prepared to leave the general direction of the high policy that would control the operations of this Department very largely in their hands, even with the limitations which I admit were put on Parliamentary discussion, because I do not believe publicly-owned industry can be effectively run if it is going to be harassed by pettifogging questions in the House. I agree that is one argument that many critics of our Socialist propositions have at their disposal, that if publicly-owned industries in the future are to be run as inefficiently as a number of Government Departments are run to-day it would be a blue look-out for the effective operation of the principles that I am anxious to see operated in our social, industrial and economic life. But I believe it is right and proper that the industries of the country should be publicly owned, I believe they can be run publicly more
efficiently more effectively and more economically.

The CHAIRMAN: The Solicitor-General has told us that at present the Crown has no power to work minerals itself and this Clause would not give the Crown power. The only question is whether they can sell the land with or without the mineral rights.

Mr. MAXTON: I put it to you, Sir, that I am well within the bounds of the Clause. I am discussing the whole of the policy of the Commissioners of Crown Lands in reference to their rights of sale or use of any particular Crown property at present. I do not want to go into a general discussion of Socialism versus individualism but I think it is a fair and reasonable thing to say we can have a body of Commissioners chosen by the responsible Government of the country which can direct the control of the Crown lands or any other body of national industry as effectively as it is done by any group in private enterprise and to the far greater advantage of the people who are working in the industry and the people who are receiving the benefits of the services carried on by the Department. I see in this Crown Lands Bill a centre round which many useful public services can he developed, and it is of the utmost importance in the Committee stage of a Bill like this that we should endeavour to see that the Crown lands are used to the highest social velue to which they can be put. It is improper that they should merely be regarded as revenue producers and that the ordinary higgling of the market should apply to them. I think the nation should adopt a different attitude towards these things altogether, and I think my hon. Friend is rendering a service in raising this matter, and unless we can have something more adequate in the way of a reply than we have had from the Solicitor-General I think my hon. Friend will be well advised to oppose the Clause.

Mr. MARDY JONES: The Solicitor-General intervened it few minutes ago, and said that the Crown has no power at all to work any Crown lands or minerals in them. That was, the substance of his statement. I should like to have something more from him than a mere statement of this sort. I thought it was
common knowledge that the Crown in past centuries has worked land, minerals and forests for public purposes. I had always understood, even from my schooldays, that the ships of the Royal Navy in the past were built out of oak which was Forest of Dean timber, and in the cutting down of the oak timber in the Forest of Dean in the 16th and 17th centuries they worked coal mines in that forest to facilitate the hewing of those trees. Then went on for a considerable period of time. To-day a great deal of the forest and minerals of the Forest of Dean are Crown property, and surely it is not correct for the Solicitor-General to say that the Crown has never had the power, because it exercised it in that way for a considerable period of time. The only point the Solicitor-General can legitimately make is that that use has gone out of practice for the past century or two, but the fact that it has gone out of use is no answer to our point that the old use could be resumed, and I submit very respectfully that it is within the power of the Crown to do this if the present Government had the will.

Captain GARRO-JONES: There is one point which can be briefly expressed, but which is, nevertheless, of vital importance to which I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 provides that the Commissioner of Crown Lands may sell any Crown land or any easement, right or privilege of any kind over or in relation to 'Crown land. There is one form of

easement, or right, or privilege to which it may be thought by some to be premature to draw attention, but which, I am convinced, within the next 20 years will become very much more important than mineral rights are to-day. I refer to the question of the utilisation of the tides. I should like to see that right, or easement, or privilege totally exempted from this Sub-section (1) and to see a public declaration made that not only is the Minister not to sell any right for the utilisation of the tides, but that any rights which may occur in the future from any new invention—and great progress is being made to this end—for utilising the tides in any part of the country belongs inherently to the Crown. If that public declaration were made now, it might save the State very much inconvenience in years to come. I believe that in a very short time the mineral rights will be acquired by the Crown in the coal industry, and I am certainly convinced that when it is found possible to utilise the tides as a source of power, the people of this country will not tolerate the exploitation of that great natural force by private individuals, and I respectfully submit that now is the time to make it clear that any new right which may be developed in that direction belongs to the State, and to nobody else.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The. Committee divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 58.

Division No. 185.]
AYES.
[10. 54 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Fielden, E. B.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Christie, J. A.
Finburgh, S.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Clayton, G. C.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Forestier, Walker, Sir L.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Forrest, W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Fraser, Captain Ian


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cope, Major William
Gault, Lieut. -Col. Andrew Hamilton


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Couper, J. B.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Gower, Sir Robert


Betterton, Henry B.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grace, John


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Blundell, F. N.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Grotrian, H. Brent


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davison, Sir W. H (Kensington, S.)
Hanbury, C.


Buchan, John
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Buckingham, Sir H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Harland, A.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Ellis, R. G.
Hartington, Marquess of


Burman, J. B.
Elveden, Viscount
Hawke, John Anthony


Butt, Sir Alfred
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)


Campbell, E. T.
Fermoy, Lord
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Shepperson, E. W.


Hills, Major John Waller
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Hilton, Cecil
Nelson, Sir Frank
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Oakley, T.
Stanley, Lieut. Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Storry-Deans, R.


Huntingfield, Lord
Pennefather, Sir John
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Penny, Frederick George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Jephcott, A. R.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Perring, Sir William George
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Tinne, J. A.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lamb, J. Q.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Ward, Lt. -Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Raine, Sir Walter
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Loder, J. de V.
Remer, J. R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lougher, Lewis
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Watts, Dr. T.


Luce, Maj. -Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wells, S. R.


Lumley, L. R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Macintyre, Ian
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


McLean, Major A.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rye, F. G.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Salmon, Major I.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Macquisten, F. A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wolmer, Viscount


Margesson, Captain D.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Womersley, W. J.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Mason, Lieut. -Col. Glyn K.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.



Merriman, F. B.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Captain Lord Stanley.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Grundy, T. W.
Ritson, J.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bondfield, Margaret
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Wellock, Wilfred


Dennison, R.
Murnin, H.
Whiteley, W.


Dunnico, H.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Palin, John Henry



Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Maxton and Mr. Tinker.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 3.—(Regulations respecting sales.)

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On this Clause there are two points I want to raise with the Minister of Agriculture, or the Solicitor-General, or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is now in the House. The Committee will observe that most of the Clauses are in common form, that the Crown shall not sell land for less money than they could get for it, though there are cases in which that has not been done. The two points I want to raise are, first, when Crown lands are sold I can see nothing in the
Measure that lays it down that the purchase money shall go to the reduction of debt and shall go into the sinking fund. As far as know, this Bill may be another step in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may next year for the purpose of his Budget sell the remaining Crown leases. I think it is necessary to have an assurance that any money accruing from the sale of the nation's property shall go to the reduction of debt. It is necessary because of the extremely improper practice followed since the War of using money from the sale of War stores for revenue purposes
instead of reduction of debt. The last Conservative Government and the present Government have done the same, and the only Chancellor of the Exchequer who followed the practice of applying such money for the National Debt was the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who followed a sound financial policy in this matter. It is essential, therefore, that we should have some assurance that the moneys, which may be considerable, will not be used for balancing the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget next year, if the Government unhappily remain in office, but will go to the reduction of debt. The second point is on page 4, sub-section (5), which says:
A sale may be made in one lot or in several lots, and either by auction or by private contract, and may he made subject to any stipulations respecting title, or evidence of title, or other things.
The words I wish to question are these: "or by private contract." In what circumstances will Government land be sold by private contract and not be exposed to auction? We had the case of the sale of the Erribol estate, which was raised on both sides of the Gangway. I need do no more than cite that example. It will be within the knowledge of the Committee that the estate, which belonged to the nation, was sold privately, that the price obtained for it was questioned, and that it was stated by Scottish Members with knowledge of the district that a better price could have been obtained if the matter had been put up for auction, but the Government refused to give satisfaction to the House on that point. I believe that there are other cases, but with this example before us we ought to have some assurance that a private contract will not be resorted to unless, in the first instance, the land has been offered by public auction. Earlier in the Clause, the Crown is permitted to put a reserve price on the land and to withdraw it if, at the auction, it does not, fetch that price. Therefore, I can see no reason why in all cases land to be sold should not, in the first place, be exposed to public auction; afterwards, if a better price can be obtained by private tender, that is a different matter. I think these two points are of some importance, and I shall be glad to have a few words of
reassurance from the Government on the matter.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): Does the hon. and gallant Member move an Amendment?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not know, Sir whether you will permit me to move an Amendment, to Subsection (5), to leave out the words "by private contract." I did not want to narrow the discussion, and so I raised those two points. Perhaps, later on, if the answer is not satisfactory, you will allow me to move the Amendment.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have no intention of delaying the proceedings. Speaking quite seriously, nobody is more anxious than I am for this Bill to proceed, but I should like, when the Solicitor-General replies, if he will state why he intends to take this Bill to-night. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture will answer. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who is leading on this occasion, will have no objection to some compromise. Nobody wants to stay here until the small hours of the morning, and I hope that when the Minister of Agriculture replies he will give us some idea as to how far we are going tonight or to-morrow morning. With regard to the Clause, generally, the Minister of Agriculture, does not take so much part in the Debates now as he did when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I remember once sitting up all night with him, and he replied to me with perfect courtesy at 9 o'clock in the morning. I do not wish to repeat that experience again. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) was perfectly right in stating his objections to the Commissioners. They are very excellent people; one is a permanent civil servant and one is the Minister of Agriculture for the time being. They may be very excellent gentlemen, but in Acts of Parliament we do not take good deeds for granted. You have to consider that all men are more or less alike. It is of the
highest importance, in framing a Bill of this kind, that everything should be safeguarded. If the State is selling a piece of land, that sale should be carried out in the best possible conditions, with due regard and to the national financial position. We want to secure that when this land is sold there will be no coalition between the seller and the buyer with a view of making a much better bargain. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull made another point, as to how any surplus should be disposed of. I think the hon. and gallant Member is wrong. I disagree with him when he says that any surplus should be used for the redemption of debt. I have never believed in that policy, and I hope I never shall, with all respect to the hon. and gallant Member. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture how any surplus is to be disposed of? We see in Clause 10 that it is to be devoted for a school house, town hall, market house, public library, public baths, museum, hospital, or other public building. Am I to understand that any surplus accruing from the sale of Crown lands is to be devoted to the purposes named in Clause 10? I certainly am not going to be a party to devoting any surplus of a sale of this kind to the redemption of debt. Nobody admires the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull more than I do. I have learned more from him than from many Members of this House, but I cannot agree to this money being spent on that object. I would sooner have it spent on the welfare of the people concerned in the Crown lands. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will give some details as to where the profits, if any, from the sale of these lands will go. I hope also that he will say how far he intends to go to-night.

Mr. GUINNESS: The intention of the Government is to get this Bill to-night. Questions have been raised on this Clause, first, as to whether the Commissioners of Crown Lands are to be allowed to sell by private treaty. We consider that that power is essential. It is absolutely necessary in transactions, even for land that is put up for sale by auction, to be able to reserve it for private treaty. I am perfectly certain it is in the public interest that that right should be preserved by the Commissioners for Crown Lands. The other
point raised was as to the disposal of funds raised by the sale of land, though both hon. Members opposite disagree as to the true course to take. The procedure is laid down in the Act of 1829, Section 108. It provides that all sums received in respect of any sale of land shall be applied to the purchase of any manors and lands, etc., or, under Section 109 of the same Act,
Sums arising from sales may be invested in Government Securities.
we believe that that is the only sound course in the case of funds like those in the control of the Crown Lands Commissioners, and this Bill makes no change in that respect.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant when, in reply to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), he said that having regard to the character of the Debate so far he had every reasonable hope of getting the Bill to-night. If the right hon. Gentleman regards the discussion that has taken place as being frivolous, and if the subsequent Debate is conducted on purely frivolous lines, I do not see how he can hope to get the Bill at a reasonable hour to-night. If that is to be the attitude and temper of the Government spokesman to any reasonable opposition, then certainly he will not get the Bill for some considerable time. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) raises a very important question, and a question of a similar type could be raised on every single Clause and Sub-section. Points emerge in connection with the Bill which show that the Committee are unaware as to the dimensions of Crown lands, unaware as to how the capital sum in the hands of the Crown Lands Commissioners is used and invested, and unaware as to the sale and purchase of new Crown lands. The Minister of Agriculture is one of the Crown Lands Commissioners; but I dare say that he has never given five minutes' study to that particular branch of his Department except to give his approval to the promotion of this Bill. Owing to the scope of his Department and the very big problems which he has had to tackle in connection with the ordinary agricultural work of the Department, as a Commissioner of Crown Lands he has never given a serious fraction of his time to considering how the Crown
lands are managed or manipulated. The other Commissioner is a permanent civil servant, the head of his Department, and, as far as I know, he is a very capable, efficient and loyal civil servant; but is the whole policy of this important Department to be left to the routine day-to-day decisions of one permanent official? Is he going to control—

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: This Clause deals with the sale of land.

Mr. MAXTON: I was rather slow in coming to the point and you anticipated me by the fraction of a second. Under no legislation is there anything that lends point to what I may call the high policy of this Department. There is no one responsible for that except that the Minister of Agriculture is a Commissioner of Crown lands.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member said that I anticipated him by one second, but he is dealing with the question on the same line.

Mr. MAXTON: I was going to get back when your anticipation of my intention to get back delayed my getting back. The Department may enter into any arrangement with any private purchaser and the Minister of Agriculture may not know of it. Some document may go through for his signature, but as a matter of fact there is now to be a seal kept in the Department in order to save the right hon. Gentleman the troublesome work of putting his signature to a transference of property. Apparently this seal is to be kept in a safe, and any transference of public property may be done by a permanent official, who stamps the seal on the document, and so much Government property is given away. There are no ordinary guarantees, no guarantees of publicity and advertisement. In the Select Committee I got from the responsible witnesses the fact that there was no compulsion on them to advertise, and that advertisement was very seldom done. It was a matter of private bargaining between two individuals behind closed doors. You have not the operation of the ordinary market and two or three competing purchasers by which you may get the approximate market value of the commodity that is to be sold. Any private person who wants possession of a particular bit of Crown
property can go privately to the civil servant, or the solicitor to the Crown agents, and say, "I want to buy this particular bit of land." I came across this in the Select Committee. Several salmon fisheries are owned in Scotland by the Commissioners of Crown Lands. One was let to a company for a period of 10 years at a rent of £15. Another, which I gathered was of a corresponding value, was let to a gallant colonel for a period of 25 years at 5s. per annum.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Where is it?

Mr. MAXTON: For the first time to-day the hon. Member is interested. It is the question of a cheap salmon fishery.

Sir W. DAVISON: And you pay for the salmon by the ounce.

Mr. MAXTON: If I estimate the hon. Member's angling abilities correctly it will be far better for him to get his salmon in the dining room of this House rather than go fishing for it in Scotland. Here you have a valuable salmon fishing let for 25 years at 5s. per annum. Do any of the sporting Members on the other side of the House believe that it is justifiable that the Crown should get 5s. a week in this instance? [Interruption.] There are many obvious jokes which turn on this matter. For instance the word "canned" is connoted. But is 5s. the market value of fishing rights on a valuable salmon stream in Scotland?

Mr. CAMPBELL: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. MAXTON: The answer is in the negative—from one who has spent most of his life in the Dutch East Indies. This is a very small example of how the nation is not getting an adequate reasonable income from its properties. All of us on these benches—and I think all of us who sit above the Gangway—take the view that the whole of the land belongs to the people. We are now left with only a small amount of the land that was, at one time, the possession of the people. Out of the small amount left we are only getting an inadequate portion of the income which we Should derive from it. That is the policy which the Minister defends—the carrying on of these transactions behind closed doors, and without publicity. That must lead to advantage being taken of the nation.
Let your permanent official be as clever and capable as you like, if there is no general indication of the public attitude towards this property, if only one man can go quietly to the Commissioners and say, "I want this fishing or these mineral rights, or this bit of land—what is the price?" then you can see how it will be done over a lunch. Even supposing it were done over a desk, it would not be a business transaction. I put it to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that in their public work they should be as honourable, as efficient, and as careful in their handling of public property as they would be with their own personal possessions on their own estates.

Mr. D. HERBERT: More so.

Mr. MAXTON: Well, I am putting it very low, and I am glad to hear that sentiment, but I am afraid from what I hear of the utterances of hon. Members opposite on the platform that they do not believe that anybody in the public service working for the community can give as good or as energetic service as can be given by those who are looking after personal property. Their idea is that only the goal of personal property and personal gain makes a man put forward his best, most honest and most efficient service. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That is your stock-in-trade; that is your chief argument against the general theories of this party. I honestly tried to save the Minister trouble in moving the Amendment to the first Clause. Had I been met on that, all these points arising on the various Clauses would not have worried me. I would have agreed with the appointment of three responsible Commissioners who could have been trusted to do all that is now left to a permanent official. Since the Government have rejected a proposal

for efficient and proper control it is necessary for us to see that in each of these Clauses, the practically uncontrolled powers granted to this permanent official are limited in such a way that he cannot misdirect our public property. I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) will be prepared to record his opposition to the attitude of the Government by going into the Lobby against it.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: The Minister of Agriculture answered a question about the disposal of the purchase money by saying that it was either re-invested or, under Clause 100 of the Act of 1829, it could be used for the purchase of further land. In this connection I want to draw attention to a real scandal. During the War land on Salisbury Plain, close to Stonehenge, was used as an aerodrome. After the War it was sold to private persons, and has since been used as a pig breeding farm. I have seen the place myself. That is a scandal, because Stonehenge is a unique prehistoric relic. Some local archæologists drew attention to the matter the other day.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. and gallant Member is going beyond the subject of this Clause.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not want to extend my reference to the subject except to say that the land again comes into the market, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Minister, when he is re-investing some of this money, will see that this land which was sold so suddenly after the War will be repurchased.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 146; Noes, 34.

Division No. 186.]
AYES.
[11. 33 p. m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Burman, J. B.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Campbell, E. T.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Christie, J. A.
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Clayton, G. C.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Betterton, Henry B.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Dawson, Sir Philip


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Ellis, R. G.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Briscoe, Richard George
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Fermoy, Lord
Lamb, J. Q.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fielden, E. B.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Finburgh, S.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Senders, Sir Robert A.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Loder, J. de V.
Shaw. R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Forrest, W.
Luce, Maj. -Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Shepperson, E. W.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lumley, L. R.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macintyre, Ian
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Gault, Lieut. -Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mc Lean, Major A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gilmour, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mc Neill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Gower, Sir Robert
Margesson, Captain D.
Stanley, Lieut. -Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Grace, John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'cland)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Merriman, F. B.
Storry-Deans, R.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hanbury, C.
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Harland, A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Hartington, Marquess of
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Headlam, Lieut. -Colonel C. M.
Oakley, T.
Ward Lt. -Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel Arthur P.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Pennefather, Sir John
Watts, Dr. T.


Hills, Major John Waller
Penny, Frederick George
Wells, S. R.


Hilton, Cecil
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H


Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wise, Sir Fredric


Howard-Bury, Lieut. -Colonel C. K.
Raine, Sir Walter
Womersley, W. J.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Remer, J. R.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Jephcott, A. R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)



Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Cope.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Rye, F. G.



NOES.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Kenworthy, Lt. -Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawson, John James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Sutton, J. E.


Dunnico, H.
Maxton, James
Viant, S P.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mosley, Oswald
Wellock, Wilfred


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hirst, G. H.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Tinker.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 4.—(Power to lease.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. BUCHANAN: On this Clause I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. The Clause deals with leases, and I see that it states that:
The Commissioners of Crown lands may lease any Crown land, or any easement, right, or privilege of any kind over or in relation to the land, for any purpose whatever, whether involving waste or not, for any term not exceeding one hunderd years from the date on which the lease is made or, in the case of a lease made in pursuance of a previous contract, from the date on which the contract was made.
That fixes a definite term of 100 years. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) think that 100
years is far too long a period for which to lease Crown lands. Here we are acting in the capacity of a trustee for the nation, and the nation may find, within a very short period, that a time may have arrived when there is the utmost need for it to acquire the land in order that it may have the national rights in it. To lease it for 100 years would mean that those who leased it had some thought, at some time, of acquiring it for the nation. We would ask the Minister of Agriculture to explain why 100 years has been chosen as the period. If we can find any valid reason why it should be preferable to a less number of years, we have no objection to allowing the Clause to go through.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: These are powers which are of the same nature
as those enjoyed by trustees under the Settled Land Acts, and the period of 100 years which has been taken is a very great deal less than the term of years for which trustees under those Acts may lease land. They may lease land for 999 years. At present, however, the Commissioners of Crown Lands can as a rule only lease for 31 years, though for certain purposes, I think the term may be 60 years, and for other purposes, I believe, in connection with mussel beds and foreshores, the term may be, if my memory serves me, 63 years. But 31 years for ordinary purposes is too short to enable them to lease lands which require a very large capital outlay, and it is in the interests of the proper use and development of Crown lands that powers should be given to the Commissioners to lease lands for a term which will tempt people to take them and lay them out for purposes for which otherwise they might not be used. On the whole, it has been thought that 100 years is a sufficient period to take, without going to the full extent of the 999 years which other trustees have, and that is the reason why that particular period was selected.

Captain GARRO-JONES: On Clause 2 I ventured to raise a point in connection with the utilisation of tides, and I do not know whether I was the more surprised at the failure of the Minister of Agriculture to vouchsafe any reply, or at the failure of some of my hon. Friends above the Gangway to apply any pressure in regard to what I consider to be a very important question. Clause 4 offers the Minister of Agriculture an opportunity of showing that he has some vision in this matter, and if he is going to make any statement on it I will sit down and give way to him with pleasure.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: May I answer the question then? For good consideration I will offer the hon. and gallant Member this answer, that tides come under the Board of Trade, and not under the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Why is he not here to answer?

Captain GARRO-JONES: I regret that the consideration offered by the Solicitor-General is not adequate for the few
minutes of time for which I propose to occupy the Committee on this question. I should like to say that this matter with which I am dealing is perfectly relevant to this Clause, whether it comes under the Commissioners of Crown Lands or not. I read that in the Irish Free State a vast scheme of utilisation of the tides is under consideration.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRay): The hon. and gallant Gentleman has had his answer. Crown lands have nothing to do with tides.

Captain GARRO-JONES: The foreshore in nearly every case is the property of the State. It may not be in every case the property of the Crown Lands Commissioners, but it is not possible for the Minister of Agriculture to say in no case do the Crown lands own any coastal property at all, and there must be some property that is within their power to release to some private individual. My argument is that no such lease ought to be made, and I am asking that an exception should be made to Clause 4 in the utilisation of the tides. It may be doubted whether the tides will ever be used as a source of power, and I admit that science has not yet discovered the secret, but no one could stand as I stood to-day, on the Terrace and see the ebb and flow of the Thames and, if he has any vision at all, doubt that some day science will discover the means of utilising that power for the benefit of mankind. It is the duty of Ministers to look forward with vision to the future. I am giving it as a free suggestion to the Minister of Agriculture. I do not think, hidebound as he is by Conservative principles, he has any scope for the display of statesmanship at all. Here is an Opportunity for him to press upon his colleagues this simple, and as I honestly believe, important suggestion, and the time will come—it may be 10, 50, 100 years hence—when they will point to him and say "It was that Minister of Agriculture who conferred this incomparable boon upon the people."

Clauses 5 (Regulations respecting leases generally) and 6 (Regulations respecting building leases) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 7.—(Regulations respecting mining leases.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I wish to ask the Minister one or two questions regarding this Clause, and the granting of mineral leases. For instance, when Crown lands are leased to mining owners, valuable seams may be found below those they have leased. Therefore, I ask what they are doing in that respect. Do they charge, where it is on a quantity basis the same royalty as upon coal? It may seem strange to hon. Members that miners should be talking about royalty rent charges on minerals belonging to the Crown, but, as long as we have a system which allows other people to take from the mines sixpence or eightpence or a shilling in the pound, the nation has a right to take exactly the same amount in the ease of Crown lands. I think this is not being done, but I want to find out the whole truth of the situation.

Mr. GUINNESS: This Clause is taken from the Settled Land Acts. It does not vary the provisions of that Act in any way and the provisions applying to the Crown Lands Commission are parallel to the conditions which apply to Settled Land. We think those provisions should be given to the Commissioners for Crown Land just as they are to the Trustees of Settled Land.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I am not satisfied that due precaution is taken to get for the State the return for the minerals leased which it ought to have. I am not satisfied in my own mind, knowing as I do some of the things which have transpired, and I should like further information on the subject. Take the Northeast coast, where nearly all the foreshore belongs to the Crown. What are you charging there and how are you leasing your coal royalties there to the coal producers?

Mr. BATEY: I hope the Minister for Agriculture is going to try to make the matter more clear than he has up to the present, I must confess that I am not much the wiser after the Minister's speech than I was before it. What I want to know is, does the Clause alter the present system? It may be said that we are interested at the moment in
increasing mining royalties, but we do want to know what is the policy in regard to these royalties It seems to us that there are such wide powers in the Clause, that the first paragraph in Clause 7 appears to say that the rent may vary according to price, or according to the acreage bought, or according to the quantity of coal gotten. It is difficult to understand whether the royalty rent is to be paid on a sliding-scale basis. Paragraph 2 seems to suggest that it may be on such a basis or it may be on the saleable value of the coal. If the royalty rent is to be on the saleable value of the coal, then that means putting it in the power of the coalowner to reduce his price, if he is selling to himself, to an extreme figure, so that the royalty benefit is extremely low. Subsection (2) of Clause 7 rather seems to say that no royalty rent need be paid at all if the landlord agrees to erect certain buildings which the Commissioners may ask for, in which case he may be relieved of any royalty rent at all. We want to know what is the practice of the Commissioners at the moment in fixing this royalty rent and whether it is on a sliding-scale basis, and, further, what is the average amount of royalty rents.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I should like also to put a question to the appropriate Department on this Clause dealing with the leasing of minerals. I regret the absence of the Secretary for Mines from this Debate to-night. He ought to have known from the tenour of the criticism on the Second Reading of the Bill that a number of mining Members, at any rate, would wish to take part in the Debate and seek to get information from him direct. We may be putting the Ministers who are here at sonic disadvantage, and, if that be so, I regret it, because certainly it is his Department, and he ought to be able to tell us more or less off-hand what we want to know with regard to this Clause.
I want to ask a few questions upon Sub-section one, which reads as follows:
the rent may be made to be ascertainable by or to vary according to the acreage worked, or by or according to the quantities of any mineral or substance gotten, made merchantable, converted, carried away, or disposed of, etc.
I should like the term "merchantable" to be made perfectly clear. Of course, I know it means "saleable," but I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to the practice in the mining industry. I desire to know what is the practice of the Government with regard to the Crown properties that are leased for mineral getting and so on. The practice varies in every coalfield of which I have knowledge, and I take it for granted that the Crown Lands Department would act more or less in accordance with local custom in regard to this matter. In some coalfields the rent is levied according to the acreage worked and not on the actual minerals that are got out of the mines, and in other districts it is on the actual minerals gotten.
12 m.
This practice obtains very generally with regard to coal, and coal is involved in this Clause. The colliery companies get from the Royalty owners—and in this case the Crown will be the Royalty owner—a certain concession on the total output. In some cases, I believe, they are allowed 2½ per cent. of the total output, and in others, two, four, five, six, seven and even 10 per cent., as was disclosed in the Sankey Commission and the Samuel Commission. This coal is used by the colliery company for colliery purposes without their having to pay Royalty upon it at all. Five per cent. of the total output of the coal of the country is a big proportion to be free from the payment of Royalty. An allowance of five per cent. in respect of minerals gotten from Crown lands would also be excessive. I wish to know what is the policy and practice of the Crown Lands Department in dealing with this particular point of "made merchantable, converted, carried away, etc." Does it mean that in a large district, where minerals are being worked on Crown lands, they simply conform to the local custom, whatever it may be, existing between private owners and colliery companies? I wish to know further, whether they check carefully the quantities of coal that are consumed by the colliery, not for legitimate colliery purposes, such as raising steam to work the machinery above and below ground, but in connection with by-product works and coke ovens. A large number of colliery companies have these by-product Indus-
tries attached to the colliery. We had remarkable evidence given before one of the Coal Commissions that as far as coal obtained from land leased by private owners was concerned, there was a great deal of dissatisfaction as to whether colliery companies were giving correct returns of the total output of coal that was merchantable. There is reason to believe—and I want to know whether it applies to these Crown lands—that they do not pay on the true merchantable output. Those are a few of the points upon which I want to obtain further information. I have been through the Select Committee reports in the hope that I would get the information, but I found nothing to throw light on this Clause, and that is why I stress the importance of having the Secretary for Mines here tonight to tell us what is the practice of his Department in that particular direction.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If this particular Clause be taken word for word, it is, in fact, Clause 45, if hon. Members want the reference. The existing practice of the Crown Lands Commissioners is to act on the advice of their mineral agents. The custom pursued varies, and there is the usual form of fixing royalties. As far as possible, the leases conform to what is the custom in the particular district in which the minerals are found. As long as the system prevails, we can hardly expect the Crown Lands Commissioners to lease minerals for less than they can command.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I think I said the Crown was leasing it at less.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the hon. Member has any cases to which to draw attention where the full value is not obtained that is a matter of administration, but this particular Clause gives the Commissioners precise powers. I think it is preferable to the old practice.

Mr. MARDY JONES: There is a further point. I am anxious not to take up unnecessary time, bet I do not find any provision in the mining leases to prevent any subsidence or destruction of property on the surface. I am well aware that
there is a Royal Commission now sitting on the question of subsidence in mining, and, if the recommendations of the Commission are awaited, there may be something in it. But the Solicitor-General could use his legal knowledge to provide a Sub-section which would be a guide to everybody and lay down regulations to see that mining is carried out in the most scientific manner.

Mr. BATEY: There is a matter in this Bill which interests members of mining constituencies. The Solicitor-General merely said what was in the Clause and said what is already in the Clause is the practice. We want to take this opportunity of getting to know just what the Commissioners are doing. The Government in asking us to pass this Bill ought to be in a position to tell us just what the present practice is.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is not a question of "might be." It is according to the district in which the coal is being worked. If it is in the hon. Member's district, the lease will probably,

and almost certainly, under the existing practice, conform to the customs of his people.

Mr. BATEY: We are not much wiser now; that does not lead us very much further. Is the Solicitor-General able to tell us just what does apply in certain districts where you have got royalties? In Durham, say, on the Crown lands near the sea, how much royalty are you getting there, and on what basis do you fix the price? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us the same thing in regard to other inland lands? We feel that here is an opportunity, when the Government are asking for this Clause, and are trying to push this Bill through, to get to know just what they are doing in regard to these royalties. I hope, before the Clause is passed, that either the Solicitor-General or the Minister of Agriculture will give us some more information on the matter.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 25.

Division No. 187.]
AYES.
[12.8 a. m.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Ashley, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pennefather, Sir John


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hanbury, C.
Penny, Frederick George


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Harland, A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hartington, Marquess of
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Betterton, Henry B.
Headlam, Lieut. -Colonel C. M.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Heneage, Lieut. -Colonel Arthur P.
Raine, Sir Walter


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Remer, J. R.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Campbell, E. T.
Hills, Major John Waller
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hilton, Cecil
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Christie, J. A.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Clayton, G. C.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cockerill, Brig. -General Sir George
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cope, Major William
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Loder, J. de V.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lumley, L. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macintyre, Ian
Ward, Lt. -Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Dawson, Sir Philip
McLean, Major A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ellis, R. G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Watts, Dr. T.


Fermoy, Lord
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


Fielden, E. B.
Mason, Lieut. -Col. Glyn K.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Finburgh, S.
Merriman, F. B.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gault, Lieut. -Col. Andrew Hamilton
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Womersley, W. J.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)



Gilmour, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THF AYES.—


Grace, John
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mr. Frederick Thomson and Captain


Grotrian, H. Brent
Oakley, T.
Bowyer.


NOES.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Ritson, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawson, John James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Sutton, J. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Whiteley, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.



Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Tinker and Mr. Batey.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 8.—(Separate dealing with surface and minerals, with or without wayleaves, etc.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. RITSON: I should like to have an explanation of this Clause. In the town of Sunderland some time ago a certain individual, who said he had an Order in Council, made a claim to the foreshore. The town clerk took action on the ground that he was interfering with the amenities of the district by destroying the foreshore. We found that he was receiving sixpence per load royalty for the sand sold, and it was stated that he was making £2,000 a year. I raised the matter with the town clerk. This person was paying nothing towards the rates. In another case, which arose in the constituency represented by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, people complained that some of their oyster fields were being taken from them by Order in Council. Local solicitors had been working on their behalf, without avail, and the matter was brought to this House by the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. It is a very serious matter if public rights are to be taken away in such a manner. It is in the interests of the public that we are calling attention to these matters. We have no axe to grind. I have given two instances where the public were robbed of their right, more particularly the case in Sunderland, where an individual obtained an Order in Council, by means we could not understand, and deprived us of our foreshore rights.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I cannot possibly give any information or express any opinion about the two cases mentioned.

Mr. RITSON: Will this Clause protect us?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. Member has spoken about the foreshore at Sunderland and the removal of sand by someone who thought he had the right to charge a royalty of sixpence a load. It is one of the most disputable of questions all round the coasts of the British Isles, who owns the foreshore. Very often people claim to own the foreshore and it is the duty of the Board of Trade, as a rule, to investigate the question of foreshore and to litigate the question, if necessary, with the people who claim the foreshore.

Mr. RITSON: The statement made by this individual was that he had an Order in Council.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I cannot say anything about a case which I do not know. It is not covered by this Clause. This Clause says nothing about foreshore. It empowers the Commissioners to make certain exchanges, a power which I should have thought hon. Members would give to the Commissioners, in order that they may be able to turn their land to the best account. It is only to make exchanges which are considered by the Commissioners to be in the interests of the public, to whom the benefit inures. The question whether protection should be given against Orders in Council should be raised in a general Act protecting the public, and not in an Act which confers rights upon the Commissioners to turn to the best interests of the public the land which they administer.

Mr. TINKER: I oppose this Clause on the same grounds as I opposed Clause 2. It empowers the sale of minerals. We take exception to the sale of minerals in this way. The same principle is involved in this Clause as was involved in the previous Clause. I notice that in the Report of the Select Committee it says that Clause 8 is taken from Section 50 of the Settled Land Acts. That does
not make any difference. I believe the Crown should retain all the mineral wealth.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have said once or twice already that I do not want to detain the Committee at this late hour, but I think this Clause really deserves some serious consideration, although it is 20 minutes past 12 o'clock. I want to put a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman which I think deserves some consideration. Some of us consider that the leasing of this land is done in far too haphazard a fashion and that Parliament has no real control. Would it not be possible for the Solicitor-General and the Government to consider the suggestion that before any land is sold a White Paper should be issued and laid on the Table of the House of Commons giving particulars of the land proposed to be sold. There is only one copy of the Crown Lands Commissioners' Report available in the Library, and the Librarian has had to become a second Sherlock Holmes in order to obtain that copy. There are no copies in the Vote Office, and all I am asking is that before land is disposed of a White Paper should be issued and laid on the Table of the House for ten days, giving particulars of the land to be disposed of. That is, I think, a perfectly reasonable request. It will not hamper the Crown Lands Commissioners at all.
We want some safeguard of this kind, and unless we get some indication that the Government will accept some proposal of this nature we shall have to divide against this Clause. It would prevent such scandals as Erribol occurring in other parts of the country. If a White Paper was laid any hon. Member could see the proposal and it could be discussed in the House of Commons. What happens now is this. As present the Commissioners do no issue their Report as a Command Paper in the ordinary fashion. Nobody seems to know anything about the transactions which take place. The whole thing seems to be a hidden conspiracy between the officers of State and private buyers with the object of fleecing the country. I hope it is not going to continue. We make this reasonable request that on Report stage the Minister should introduce an Amendment providing for
the issue of a White Paper which will lie on the Table of the House for a certain period before any transaction of this kind becomes legal. In making this request I am holding out the olive branch, in order that we may make some progress. We do not want to remain here any longer than we can help. We want to make progress on this Bill and I should like to hear a statement from the Minister as to how far it is intended to proceed to-night. Is it still his intention to try to get all 26 Clauses of the Bill? With our help he has now got to Clause 8 and I do not know where he would have been had we been opposing the Bill. I certainly do not want to go on all night. The Solicitor-General may have important legal work to do to-morrow, involving large sums of money for the community and he could do it much better after a good night's rest. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury may have to sign important documents to-morrow—documents which require to be read carefully. How can he read them carefully if he is half asleep, after being up all night in this House? I ask the Minister and the Solicitor-General to accept the reasonable compromise which I have suggested.

Mr. MARDY JONES: I wish to enter my protest against Clause 8. Again, I would remind the Committee that on the Second Reading we drew attention to the unsatisfactory nature of this and other provisions of the Bill. We have not yet had from the Government any statement of policy on this point. I object to the first two words of the Clause—"A sale." Why should the Government sell mineral rights such as way-leaves in this way. The Government are losing a golden opportunity of getting rid of these way-leaves altogether. If there is one thing more annoying than another in connection with all forms of mining, it is this charge for wayleaves, above and under ground, for the passage of minerals, water, air and so forth. In the last generation the attention of the House has been called repeatedly to this matter. An important Royal Commission in 1894 recommended the abolition of wayleaves. Since then we have had the Sankey and Samuel Commissions, both of which have denounced these wayleaves. Wayleaves are a very serious hindrance to the
efficiency of mining and the Government are perpetuating a nuisance and a burden. They ought to seize this opportunity of saying that, so far as Crown land is concerned, "We will abolish wayleaves as they are a burden to the administration of mining operations in this country." I would like to know whether they are prepared to consider that point or not? I take it for granted that every Member of this House is very familiar with mining operations, and, as they have an extensive knowledge of the subject, I need only point out that the charging of these wayleaves is a scandal to the nation. Imagine the royalty owner having the saying, because he owns the surface, that, in addition to charging royalties, he has the right to charge on minerals which are being passed under his ground to adjoining ground. There are many collieries in which the burden upon production is excessive, because of the charge for wayleaves on minerals passing from one estate to another estate. In most mines they are greatly troubled with water, and, merely for the passing from one estate to another ground, they have a right to charge. They charge not only for coal and water, but for air, which is a vital thing. It is a national scandal, and here the Government are perpetuating that scandal when they have an opportunity, as Crown land owners, of setting the matter right and giving an example to private owners.

Mr. BATEY: This is an important Clause, and Clauses 7 and 8 are to mining members the two important Clauses in this Bill. We voted on Clause 7 with little discussion. As Clause 8 is an important Clause, I want to say to the Minister of Agriculture, and he might very wisely have accepted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and have been satisfied to-night with that portion of the Bill which has already been got through. To deal with Clause 7 and then ask us to deal with Clause 8 at this time of the night is really too bad. There is a Clause which gives mineral rights. With one of my colleagues who recently spoke, I believe that power to the Commissioners to sell mineral rights ought to be retained by the Crown, and not sold. I am not sure
that the Commissioners would be doing a just thing to sell mineral rights at the moment, because only a week ago the Miners' Federation decided that they were opposed to compensation for royalties. The Commissioners may sell mineral rights to someone who in a short time would not be able to get compensation for the money paid to the Crown. From that point of view, it would not be fair for the Commissioners to sell these mineral rights at the moment. I believe that within a few years the mines of this country will be nationalised, and, when the coal mines are nationalised, that a moderate Labour Government, even a Government belonging to the right wing, will not be able to give compensation for royalties.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Nationalisation and compensation do not come under this Clause.

Mr. BATEY: I was rather wishing to warn the Minister of Agriculture against disposing of these mineral rights, because, by disposing of them, he might inflict hardship upon persons foolish enough to buy them. We have been told that this Clause was taken out of some other Act of Parliament, but even then I think the Government would have been wise to adjourn the debate in order to delete this Clause. After all has been said and done, the Government have done sufficient harm already. Last year they did sufficient harm to the mining industry, and they should not attempt to inflict any greater harm on it. I hope the Minister is going to accept the suggestion to report Progress.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I wonder whether it is in order to ask you to accept this Motion? I should like to point out that we have already passed seven Clauses of a Bill which cannot be considered unimportant. I ask you to accept the Motion from a very impartial standpoint. I have not entered into an arrangement to oppose this Bill, but it deals with matters more far-reaching than many people had anticipated. A great many hon. Friends of mine would have been here if they had realised that so many vitally important matters were to be discussed. It does not lie in the
mouths of hon. Members opposite to laugh at the paucity of attendance of Members on this side. There is only one relief present on the other side, and not very many of them. I would like to ask if the Government cannot come to some arrangement not to try to take the whole of this Bill to-night. After all, there are 26 Clauses, every Clause dealing with matters of some substance and extremely controversial. Perhaps it is going too far to say that, but they open up subjects on which Members would like to express their opinions at some length. We have got one Clause for every quarter of an hour during which

Question again proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask if this is how the Government intend to treat us?

the Bill has been under discussion, and even that rats might be expedited if the Government were not to attempt to do the rather unreasonable thing of taking the whole twenty-six Clauses of the Bill at this hour of the night. I should like to ask whether something cannot be done to reduce the amount of the Bill that they intend to take to-night.

The CHAIRMAN being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, put the Question thereupon forthwith.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 18; Noes, 111.

Division No. 188.]
AYES.
[12.42 a. m.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Wellock, Wilfred


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James



Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Mr. Pethick-Lawrence and Colonel




Harry Day.




NOES.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Hanbury, C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Ashley, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Raine, Sir Walter


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Harland, A.
Remer, J. R.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Betterton, Henry B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hills, Major John Waller
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hilton, Cecil
Shaw, R. G (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Shepperson, E. W.


Christie, J. A.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Clayton, G. C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cope, Major William
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Storry-Deans, R.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Loder, J. de V.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macintyre, Ian
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dawson, Sir Philip
McLean, Major A.
Ward, Lt.-Col, A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Ellis, R. G.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fermoy, Lord
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fielden, E. B.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Watts, Dr. T.


Finburgh, S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wells, S. R.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Oakley, T.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Womersley, W. J.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Pennefather, Sir John



Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.

No reply has been made by the Government to any of the points raised. I should like to ask the Solicitor-General if he has any intention of replying to any of the speeches. I have asked him what
he thinks of laying before the House a White Paper on the state of the transactions of the Commissioners. If he is going to turn the suggestion down, he might at least tell us. Are we going to be turned down because we are a small number? I do not want to sit here all night, but, if we are to be treated with contempt as we are being treated, there is nothing for us to do but to fight on until 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock in the morning. My train is at 10 'clock in the morning, and, if we sit until that time, I will save some money by not going home. I do not mind sitting here until then. On the other hand, I ask the Solicitor-General if it is fair to inflict such a sitting on the other Members. I made a reasonable request, but he has made no reply. Nor has he made any reply to any of the other speeches. The attitude is "Oh! they are only 18 irresponsibles." If that be the attitude, we accept it. I do not mind hon. Members holding a very low opinion of me, because I have a very low opinion of them, and they are entitled to the same view about me. But the Minister of Agriculture has treated us with absolute contempt so far. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) was here a short time ago, and made a reasonable speech. Other hon. Members have made reasonable speeches. I myself asked about the White Paper. But it is quite obvious, from the Solicitor-General, that he will not believe a word that we are saying tonight. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has taken a keen interest in this Bill, and we think we are quite serious. We do not mind the fair Parliamentary game, but we are not going to sit here to be treated with absolute contempt.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member is really making an imaginary grievance. If he will carry his mind back to what took place, he will remember that he and his colleagues asked certain questions. Before any of my colleagues were able to reply, an hon. Member from the other side of the gangway moved to report Progress, which, under the Rules of the House, was put without any debate or without any opporunity to reply. It was not our fault. I had the Report in my hand.

Captain GARRO-JONES: On a point of Order. I want to resolve a doubt which the statement of the Minister of Agriculture arouses in my mind. I want to ask, Sir, whether it is the case that it is not possible, even with your permission, to debate a Motion to report Progress.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Under Standing Order 23, the Chairman is empowered, either to disregard the Motion altogether or to put it forthwith, without any discussion. I put the Question forthwith.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not also provided in the Standing Orders that you have a third alternative? You can choose to neglect the Motion, you can put it immediately, and, if you think it has further value, you can allow it to be debated. The hon. Member, when he moved it, thought you might have chosen the third alternative.

Mr. GUINNESS: Surely the point is that the Motion to report Progress took precedence over the Debate which was then being carried on, and prevented me or my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General from answering the question which had been put. I am prepared to answer that question now. I had the Paper in my hand, with a view to giving an answer. At the present time, the Report of the Commissioners of Crown Lands does give the information for which hon. Members ask. It gives full information about leases and sales of land. None of these transactions takes place without detailed Treasury sanction, and they are reported to Parliament in the White Paper which hon. Members opposite have consulted this evening. I do not think there is anything further.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But that cannot be got in the Vote Office. It is not published in the ordinary way. Take the Scottish Board of Agriculture, where they issue an annual report. That annual report is quite easily procurable through the Vote Office, but we cannot get this paper through the Vote Office, and, so far as I know, it does not appear in the White Paper. We have tried to look through the papers of the Vote Office and the Stationery Office and, despite fairly good efforts, the only way we could ultimately get it was, by a good deal of looking with the librarian.

Mr. GUINNESS: I think the hon. Member will find it is published in the Stationery Office list, and is available on the terms put down on the Stationery Office papers. As to his suggestion that we should not continue the discussion, I would remind him that the whole of the important provisions of this Bill were fully discussed in this House only two years ago in connection with settled land. The House decided that certain powers were desirable in the case of settled land. The land under the control of the Crown Commissioners is on all fours with the land to which the Act passed two years ago applies, and it is obviously most inconvenient that there should be conflicting powers and varying codes to apply to land in the hands of the Commissioners of Crown Lands and land privately owned. The fact that this Bill embodies for the most part, in all the important details, the powers and provisions which were fully discussed two years ago in this House, does make it not unreasonable that we should ask for a decision on these matters without undue delay. This Bill has been examined by a Select Committee, and this hybrid Bill procedure does give the House an additional check over the legislation which is brought before it. Under these conditions, I do ask the Committee to let us have this Bill.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to say, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, that his explanation, while very full, is not complete. He tells us that this Annual Report is available to Members if they are prepared to look through the Stationery Office list and happen to notice it. I question very much whether there are 10 Members in this House who look, in close detail, through the monthly list of Stationery, Office publications. I am quite sure that very few members do so, and that does not seem to me to be an effective and adequate way of bringing to the attention of this House important transactions, such as this, which are being put through in a routine way. It is not strictly accurate to say that all these are subject to detailed Treasury revision, because, under certain monetary limits, the Department itself has complete power over its transactions. They may ultimately go to the Treasury, as every bit of public work does ultimately touch the Treasury in some way or another; but it is not true to suggest
that the Treasury has got any adequate control over the detailed transactions that the Crown Lands Commissioners carry through. The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that this particular Bill received detailed examination by a Select Committee.
1.0 a.m.
I was on that Select Committee, and I understood that a Select Committee of this description on a hybrid Bill which touches certain private interests—a Select Committee which is performing a quasi —judicial function —is deciding whether there is a primâ facie case for the Bill getting further considered by this House in Committee and on Third Reading. I was on that Committee. I think there were three meetings of the Committee, one purely formal.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not understand what either the remarks of the Minister or the remarks of the hon. Member in answer have to do with Clause 8. I was about to stop the Minister when he stopped himself. But I really do not think that this argument as to the proceedings of the Select Committee should be much further continued. The hon. Member is quite in order in answering the Minister, but I do not think he can do more than that.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not wish to quarrel with that ruling in any way. I will merely say this, that I know that the only adequate examination that was given by that Select Committee to the Bill was given by myself. I was the only person who troubled to attend the Committee and the only person responsible for Amendments and for the discussion taking place now. To say that one can expect this to be concluded in a very short time is wholly unfair, because there is one Amendment further down on the paper that touches the disposal of Church property and is one which I am sure will arouse very serious controversy, and not along party lines at all, involving very important principles.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has answered the point the Minister made. I am afraid I must blame myself for not having stopped the Minister, but I think the hon. Member is now breaking into completely new matters which are
not relevant to the Question, that the Clause stand part.

Mr. MAXTON: It is relevant to this point that unless the Minister is prepared to accept the reasonable proposal to consider the remainder of the Bill at some future date this discussion on Clause 8 and the subsequent Clauses must be continued at some considerable length. Some of the subsequent Clauses will arouse very strong controversy along other than merely party lines. Clause 8 itself is not adequately safeguarding the interests of the public in the administration of Crown lands, and I join with my hon. Friends who have opposed the Clause. I hope that they will see their way to carry that opposition to a Division.

Mr. BATEY: I thought the Minister was going to give some reason for this Clause, but he did not advance any solid arguments for it being in this Bill at all. What he did do was this. He gave us two reasons. One was that this matter was discussed two years ago, and the other was that the Treasury had to receive a Report. These did not seem to me to be sufficient reasons for Clause 8. There have been such a lot of mining discussions during the last two years that it is not possible to remember the particular discussion that took place then. It may have been discussed very fully or it may not have been discussed at all, but it is no reason why to-day we should not be informed why the Government are putting this Clause in the Bill. I want to remind the Minister that Clause 8 gives to the Commissioners enormous powers—powers for the sale of land with or without reservation of all or any of the mines or minerals. I was wondering, coming across the word mines, whether the Minister of Agriculture can tell us just what mines there are which belong to the Crown and which are under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners. If there are any mines one would like to know where the mines are and whether the Minister can tell us what is the result of the working of these mines. The other reason given for this Clause was that any saving was reported to the Treasury. That rather frightened me. The fact that the Treasury has got a hand in it makes me more afraid of this Clause than I was before the Minister spoke. Under this Clause, the Commis-
sioners can sell all the mineral rights they have, and, if the Treasury has a hand in it, the Treasury may encourage them to sell. One cannot forget the action of the Treasury last year and this year. Last year they raided the Health Insurance and the Unemployment Insurance funds, and this year the Chancellor seized the twelve million surplus in the Road Fund. Next year he may have to balance his Budget again, and, there being none of these funds to raid, his eyes may be drawn to Clause 8 in this Bill. The Chancellor is not here to-night, but the Financial Secretary is here, and he may draw the attention of the Chancellor to-morrow to Clause 8 in this Bill. Then the Chancellor may say to himself, "I have something here for the Budget this next year if it is not possible to balance it," and he may insist upon the Commissioners of Crown lands selling all the mineral rights they have in order that the Treasury may have more money to balance the Budget for next year. This Clause is a very dangerous Clause. There could be no more dangerous Clause in the Bill than this. If the Government insist upon going on with this Clause, we shall have no option but to divide the House against it.

Mr. MARDY JONES: There is a great deal of substance in the remarks of the hon. Member who has just spoken, and the temptation of the Treasury to raid the balance of the Crown Lands for the next Budget. It is pretty well anticipated that the Government will get into a difficulty with the Budget, and the Chancellor is very avaricious and does not hesitate to find money wherever he can get it. According to the Select Committee's Report, the annual income of the revenues amount to £1,100,000 a year, and that capitalised would produce a very substantial sum, and it will be a great temptation to him. I want to ask the Government why the Secretary for Mines is not in his place to-night to deal with this particular Clause which so concerns the mining industry. I am under the impression that the Secretary for Mines is somewhere about the House. If that be so, he ought to be in his place. I certainly think it is a great discourtesy to the Committee that the Secretary for Mines is not in his place. He has absolutely no excuse for not being here. We made it clear to him during the Second Beading debate that we desired informa-
tion on this Clause. We are discussing Clauses which deal very largely with minerals. Clauses 7 and 8 are vitally concerned with the mining property of the Crown. He ought to be here so that we might get from him information we have failed to extract from any of the Government representatives on that bench. Frankly, they know nothing about the matter, and they are wasting our time and the time of the Committee. If the Secretary for Mines is about the House, the Serjeant-at-Arms should be asked to bring him in. These points about wayleaves have not yet been answered by the Government spokesmen in charge of this Bill. We do attach the utmost importance to the subject, because wayleaves are a tremendous burden on the industry.

Captain GARRO-JONES: This discussion has shown that there is a genuine feeling among members on this side of the House that there are no adequate safeguards under the existing law to prevent the improper disposition of Crown lands. Examples have been given, one case being that of a salmon fishery let at a rental of 5s. per annum. This Clause empowers the Commissioners of Crown Lands to do certain things and states:
A sale, exchange, lease or other authorised disposition, may be made either of land, with or without an exception or reservation of all or any mines and minerals therein, or of any mines and minerals, and in any such case with or without a grant or reservation of powers of working, wayleaves or rights of way, rights of water and drainage.
There are two very important rights there, or easements, that affect the public—the right of way and the right of drawing water. I can conceive that in connection with such cases feeling

might be aroused, for nothing arouses more animosity than tampering with a right of way or the right to take water. The Solicitor-General told that the Treasury exercised general supervision over all transactions. If that be so, the supervision has not been effectively exercised. Several examples have been given to show that the supervision exercised by the Treasury has not prevented improper disposition of Crown lands. If I may say so without any disrespect to the Minister of Agriculture, it is useless for him to come here and cast aspersions on the character of the Debate from this side of the House. We are content to come and make our arguments, however little he thinks about them. Our point of view may be very unintelligent, or the Minister may at this hour of the night have become a little obtuse, but there is a feeling that the rights of the public are in danger. I do not insist that a White Paper should be laid on the table of the House in every case. I do not think anyone does—

Mr. BUCHANAN: Yes.

Captain GARRO-JONES: But I would like to see some safeguard to prevent almost indecent transactions, because there have been some indecent transactions in Crown land. Is there any additional safeguard which the Minister of Agriculture can offer which will relieve the minds of hon. Members, for the Crown Lands Commissioners are under the present system empowered to make dangerous concessions of public rights without adequate consideration.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 18.

Division No. 189.]
AYES.
[1.15 a. m.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hanbury, C.


Ashley, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harland, A.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hartington, Marquess of


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Headlam, Lieut. -Colonel C. M.


Betterton, Henry B.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Heneage, Lieut. -Col. Arthur P.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Ellis, R. G.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Fielden, E. B.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Finburgh, S.
Hills, Major John Waller


Butt, Sir Alfred
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Hilton, Cecil


Carver, Major W. H.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Christie, J..A.
Gault, Lieut. -Col. Andrew Hamilton
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Clayton, G. C.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gilmour, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grotrian, H. Brent
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Cockerill, Brig. -General Sir George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lamb, J. Q.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Loder, J. de V.
Raine, Sir Walter
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Luce, Maj. -Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Remer, J. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Lumley, L. R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Macintyre, Ian
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


McLean, Major A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Ward, Lt. -Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Margesson, Captain D.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Mason, Lieut. -Col. Glyn K.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Watts, Dr. T.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wells, S. R.


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Shepperson, E. W.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Oakley, T.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Stanley, Lieut. -Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Womersley, W. J.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)



Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Storry-Deans, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Major Cope and Mr. Penny.


NOES.


Batty, Joseph
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Wellock, Wilfred


Day, Colonel Harry
Maxton, James



Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Potts, John S.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Tinker


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 9.—(Power to grant water rights to Statutory Bodies.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I would like to ask the Solicitor-General a question. Under Clause 9 of the Bill, power is given to statutory bodies for water rights. These are very important rights and powers. Are similar powers to be given for the development of overhead transmission lines or otherwise for the purpose of electrical development in rural areas? If such powers are given, I cannot find any reference to them. I would like to express the hope that the Commissioners in the exercise of their powers will facilitate the development of overhead lines.

The CHAIRMAN: This Clause deals with water supply. To make the question relevant, there would have to be the supply of water for the development of electricity.

Sir D. NEWTON: I am sorry if I have not made my point clear. The same powers will be needed in regard to electricity as in regard to water.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that we can discuss that on a water Clause.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 10.—(Power to grant land for public and charitable purposes.)

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in Page 8, line 27, after the word "religion," to insert the words "recreation ground."
There is a great demand now being made for money to spend in acquiring recreation grounds. We think that to include the words "recreation ground "in the Clause is simply to put it in its proper place, though in that latter category the English have never created, but have followed Scotland. I suggest the Minister of Agriculture might see his way to accept this very modest Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I accept this Amendment. Like other hon. Members, I am interested in playing grounds, and the Amendment simply offers the same facilities for playing grounds.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 (Dedication for streets, open, spaces, etc.) 12 (Power to exchange houses in Royal Parks, etc., for other houses),and 13 (Power for Com-
missioners of Crown Lands to enter into contracts), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—(Mr. Guinness.)

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (20th June).

The remaining Government Orders were read and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Commander Eyres Monsell.)

Adjourned at Twenty-nine minutes after One o'clock.